The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2025 with Catch Advice for 2026 PDF Free Download

Name: The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2025 with Catch Advice for 2026 PDF
Author: Larry Franklin

1 / 67

0 views•67 pages

The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2025 with Catch Advice for 2026 PDF Free Download

The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2025 with Catch Advice for 2026 PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

Report of the Technical Expert Group on Salmon

to the

North-South Standing Scientific Committee for

Inland Fisheries

The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2025

with Catch Advice for 2026

December 2025

Citation

TEGOS (2025). The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2025 with Catch Advice for 2026.

Report of the Technical Expert Group on Salmon (TEGOS) to the North-South Standing

Scientific Committee for Inland Fisheries, 65 pp.

1 Executive summary .......................................................................................................................... 4

2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Terms of reference for the operation of the Technical Expert Group on Salmon.......... 6

2.2 Advice process ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 NSSSCIF request for additional advice for 2026 ................................................................. 7

2.4 Overview of status and trends in Irish salmon stocks ......................................................... 7

3. Assessment methodology for 2026 catch advice ......................................................................... 9

3.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Data inputs .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Fish counter and trap data ............................................................................................... 11

3.2.2 Rod catch data .................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.3 Rod exploitation rates ........................................................................................................ 14

3.2.4 Commercial catch data ................................................................................................... 17

3.2.5 Catchment-wide electro-fishing data ............................................................................. 17

3.3 Conservation limits .............................................................................................................. 17

3.4 Stock assessment and catch advice approach ............................................................. 18

3.4.1 Stock assessment and catch advice based on fish counters and traps ...................... 18

3.4.2 Stock assessment and catch advice based on angling catches and associated

exploitation rates ............................................................................................................... 19

3.4.3 Stock assessment model .................................................................................................... 19

3.4.4 Catch advice based on catchment-wide electrofishing (CWEF) ................................ 20

3.4.5 Catch advice thresholds for fisheries management advice ......................................... 20

3.5 Additional considerations .................................................................................................. 21

4. Status of stocks and precautionary catch advice for 2026 ........................................................ 22

4.1 River-specific catch advice .............................................................................................. 22

4.2 Mixed-stock catch advice ................................................................................................ 31

5. Recent trends in salmon stock status ............................................................................................ 34

5.1 Fish counter time series ...................................................................................................... 34

5.2 National returns and estimates of spawners relative to CL attainment ........................ 37

5.2.1 One-sea-winter returns and spawners .............................................................................. 37

5.2.2 Multi-sea-winter returns and spawners ............................................................................. 37

5.2.3 Stock forecast (2025 to 2028) ............................................................................................ 39

5.2.4 Additional considerations .................................................................................................. 39

6 Advice for stock rebuilding ............................................................................................................ 40

6.1 International guidance on stock rebuilding .................................................................... 40

6.2 Factors affecting stock rebuilding programmes for Irish salmon stocks ........................ 42

Marine survival ................................................................................................................ 42

Freshwater ...................................................................................................................... 45

7 Changes to assessments in future years ....................................................................................... 47

7.1 Exploitation rates ................................................................................................................ 47

7.2 River Lee, River Owenacurra and Cork Harbour ............................................................. 47

8 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 48

9 References ....................................................................................................................................... 49

10 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 51

Appendix I. Members of the Technical Expert Group on Salmon (TEGOS) 2025/2026 .............. 51

Appendix II. River rod catch exploitation rates applied for 2026 catch advice ........................ 52

Appendix III. Summary results from the catchment-wide electro-fishing programme in 2025 . 58

Appendix IV. River / stock specific information used in the salmon catch advice process for

the 2026 advice and catch advice at various probabilities of attaining conservation

limit ...................................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix V. Salmon-designated rivers within Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) where

salmon have a qualifying interest and status relative to CL for the 2026 advice. ...... 63

1 Executive summary

River-specific scientific catch advice on our salmon fisheries is provided for the forthcoming

season by the Technical Expert Group on Salmon (TEGOS) principally based on a forecast of

the abundance of salmon which will return to each river in that year, comparison of the

estimated returns to the river-specific conservation limit (CL), and determination of harvest of

salmon which could be made while allowing a high chance that the CL will be met. In simple

terms, the CL is the minimum number of returning salmon a river stock requires to ensure its

stock is healthy and above which a surplus may be identified for sustainable harvest. TEGOS

provide this advice to the North-South Standing Scientific Committee for Inland Fisheries

(NSSSCIF) who in turn advise Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) in this regard. IFI then formulate this

advice for the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment who publish the relevant

draft regulations for public consultation. Once this process concludes, the regulations are

finalised and enacted in advance of the upcoming fishing season.

The TEGOS advice thresholds are as follows. Where stocks are exceeding their CL a

sustainable surplus (i.e. Total Allowable Catch) is advised for harvest. Where stocks are

assessed as being somewhat below their CL, or if surveys indicate fry numbers are good,

catch & release-only (C&R-only) angling is advised. Where a stock is well below its CL and /or

fry numbers are poor or there is insufficient data to assess stock status, then a stock is advised

to be closed to all fishing activity. TEGOS provide standard catch advice at a 75% chance

that a specific stock is likely to meet CL. For the 2026 advice, the NSSSCIF has requested that

TEGOS also provide catch advice at more conservative probabilities (chance) that the CL

will be attained (i.e. at 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 99%). As the chance of meeting CL increases,

the number of salmon that are advised for sustainable harvest lowers. This is because more

certainty is required that the CL will be met at the catch harvest advised. A further effect of

increasing the certainty that the CL will be met is that particular stocks may not have a

sustainable surplus for harvest than would otherwise be the case.

Overall, catch advice for the 2026 season is provided by TEGOS for 144 salmon stocks. For 16

of these river stocks, separate one-sea-winter (1SW) and two-sea-winter (2SW) stock

assessments are made and associated respective catch advice also issued. This is because

these river stocks have a relatively high proportion of multi-sea-winter (MSW). The number of

stocks in each catch advice category (i.e. surplus advised for harvest; advised for C&R-only

fishing; or advised closed to all fishing) including those assessed for CL attainment at various

probabilities of meeting CL is summarised in the following tables.

Number of total or one-sea-winter stocks in each catch advice category at various probabilities of

meeting CL.

Advice 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Surplus 41 35 29 23 15 11

C&R-only 29 31 33 36 38 36

Closed 74 78 82 85 91 97

Number of two-sea-winter stocks in each catch advice category at various probabilities of meeting CL.

Advice 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Surplus 8 7 6 6 5 3

C&R-only 5 5 5 5 5 7

Closed 3 4 5 5 6 6

This report also outlines recent trends in Irish wild Atlantic salmon stocks and provides an

overview of the principal pressures that affect their continued sustainability.

2 Introduction

The North-South Standing Scientific Committee for Inland Fisheries (NSSSCIF) was formed in

early 2018 to support the provision of scientific advice relating to the conservation and

sustainable exploitation of the inland fisheries resource with advice provided in response to

requests from the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment (DCEE) and its

agency Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI), the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural

Affairs (DAERA) from Northern Ireland and the Loughs Agency a North-South Implementation

Body. This group was also tasked with considering the co-ordination and effective use of

scientific resources for data collection and research projects linked to the above. The

NSSSCIF Terms of Reference (ToRs) facilitates the formation of Expert Groups drawn from

within the membership of the Committee, or additional invitees as required, to advise and

contribute on any particular species, aquatic habitat or biosecurity issues. To this end, the

NSSSCIF has established the Technical Expert Group on Salmon (TEGOS) to provide scientific

advice to guide the NSSSCIF and IFI management in decisions and policy development

relating to salmon. Members of the TEGOS 2025/2026 are provided in Appendix I.

2.1 Terms of reference for the operation of the Technical Expert Group on Salmon

This section outlines the ToRs for the operation of a Technical Expert Group on Salmon to

support the NSSSCIF with scientific advice on salmon stock status to support IFI with the

management of salmon stocks.

Purpose

The NSSSCIF requests the TEGOS to provide an annual report on the status of salmon stocks,

as outlined in Appendix A, for the purpose of advising the NSSSCIF on the sustainable

management of Irish salmon stocks. The NSSSCIF may also request the TEGOS to offer

scientific advice on the implications of proposed management decisions or policies on

salmon or seek advice on scientific matters in relation to salmon. All scientific advice

provided by TEGOS will be reviewed by the NSSSCIF and presented as independent advice.

Appendix A:

For the purpose of advising the NSSSCIF, the TEGOS shall estimate the overall abundance of

salmon returning to rivers in the State under the remit of IFI with reference to river-specific

conservations limits (CLs). The TEGOS shall carry out an assessment of salmon stocks using

internationally accepted best scientific practice which should demonstrate whether:

a. conservation limits are being or likely to be attained on an individual river basis; and

b. favourable conservation status is being attained within Special Areas of Conservation

(SACs) and nationally as required under the Habitats Directive or otherwise.

The assessment shall take account of mixed-stock fishing on salmon stocks including the

potential effects on freshwater salmon populations from rivers other than those targeted. In

cases where stocks are determined to be below CLs, the TEGOS shall advise the level to

which catches should be reduced or other measures adopted on a fishery basis in order to

ensure a high degree of probability of meeting the CLs. The TEGOS shall respond to the

NSSSCIF relating to specific requests for scientific advice using best international practice. The

TEGOS shall provide the NSSSCIF with an independent annual report, which contains the

following information:

a. an annual overview of the status of Irish salmon stocks on an individual river basis;

b. catch advice with an assessment of risks associated with the objective of meeting

conservation limits in all rivers;

c. upon request an evaluation of the effects on salmon stocks and fisheries of

management measures or policies; and

d. upon request from the NSSSCIF, report on specific scientific advice relating to salmon

conservation.

2.2 Advice process

TEGOS provide this advice to the NSSSCIF who in turn advise IFI in this regard. IFI then

formulate this advice for the DCEE who publish the relevant draft regulations for public

consultation. Once this process concludes, the regulations are finalised and enacted in

advance of the upcoming fishing season.

2.3 NSSSCIF request for additional advice for 2026

TEGOS provide standard catch advice at a 75% probability that a specific stock is likely to

meet CL. For the 2026 advice, the NSSSCIF has requested that TEGOS also provide catch

advice at more conservative probabilities that the CL will be attained (i.e. at 80%, 85%, 90%,

95% and 99%). In effect, the more conservative the probability is of meeting CL, the lower the

catch option advised and the less likely a stock is deemed to achieve CL.

2.4 Overview of status and trends in Irish salmon stocks

The International Council of the Sea Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (ICES WGNAS)

estimate that numbers of wild salmon returning to Ireland have progressively declined from

well over 1 million per annum for much of the 1970s to under 200,000 in recent years. Such

declining trends are also evident in many jurisdictions across the North Atlantic basin (ICES

2025). This declining trend is also reflected in adult returns in Irish rivers monitored by fish

counters. The current stock assessment shows that only 28% of the 144 salmon designated

river stocks in Ireland are exceeding conservation limits at the 75% probability level. This

includes 53% (n=41) of the 77 salmon stocks where direct assessments could be made.

3. Assessment methodology for 2026 catch advice

3.1 Background

River-specific scientific catch advice on our salmon fisheries is provided for the forthcoming

season principally based on a forecast of the abundance of salmon which will return to each

river in that year, comparison of the estimated returns to the river-specific conservation limit

(CL), and determination of harvest of salmon which could be made while allowing a high

probability that the CL will be met. There are 144 salmon-designated river stocks in Ireland

which are considered in this regard. For 16 of these river stocks separate one-sea-winter

(1SW) and two-sea-winter (2SW) stock assessments are made and associated respective

catch advice also issued. This is because these river stocks have a relatively high proportion

of multi-sea-winter (MSW). In addition to this, there are also a small number of mixed-stock

fisheries where common embayment catch advice is also provided.

Among the 144 designated salmon rivers are 67 river stocks where no or insufficient fish

counter or rod catch data are available in the most recent five-year period, making a direct

assessment difficult. Although the vast majority of these are insignificant fisheries, their stocks

are important as distinctive spawning populations, which must be maintained as constituent

elements of biodiversity, particularly when designated as a qualifying interest in an SAC

under the EU Habitats Directive. Because there are no recent means of direct salmon stock

assessment on these rivers, the TEGOS have not provided an assessment of CL attainment on

these rivers for the 2026 advice. The TEGOS advise that these rivers remain closed until

additional information is made available to assess stock status relative to their CLs or

catchment-wide electrofishing data indicates they can be opened for catch & release-only

fishing. In effect, this means that stocks in 77 salmon rivers are assessed for the 2026 advice.

The conservation limit (CL) applied by the TEGOS to establish the status of individual stocks is

the “maximum sustainable yield” (MSY) also known as the stock level that maximises the

long-term average surplus, as defined and used by the International Council for the

Exploration of the Sea (ICES). For the standard TEGOS advice, harvest options are identified

which provide a 0.75 probability (75% chance) of meeting and exceeding the CL. This follows

the approach used by ICES for the provision of salmon catch advice for West Greenland

(ICES 2022). Where no option provides a 75% chance of meeting the CL, there is no surplus of

fish forecast to support a fishing harvest.

It is important to note that CLs alone are not necessarily the minimum decision threshold that

can be applied as regards the sustainable management of salmon stocks (White et al. 2023).

This is highlighted in the NASCO Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Fisheries (NASCO

2009) in the context of management targets (MTs) which should also be established at a

level above the CL to assist fishery managers in ensuring that there is a high probability of

stocks exceeding their CLs…; this probability level should be defined by managers (Section

2.4e); and The MT will therefore be greater than the CL with the margin between them at

least reflecting the risks, decided by managers, of stocks falling below the CL”. In this context,

for the 2026 advice, the NSSSCIF has requested that TEGOS also provide catch advice at

more conservative probabilities that the CL will be attained (i.e. at 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and

99%). In any case, the use of the 75% probability as a threshold measure to assess river-

specific stock status remains an important baseline for national reporting to international

bodies such as ICES and NASCO.

Figure 1 Standard TEGOS scientific process from 2007 to present (note: for the 2026 advice,

additional catch options have been provided at more conservative probabilities than 75% (i.e. at

80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 99%) that the CL will be attained.

There was no change in principle to the methodological framework used to provide catch

advice for the 2026 season. A summary of the approach is shown in Figure 1. In-river or

estuarine measures of abundance are used (i.e. fish counter data and rod/net catch data)

to provide a primary measure of spawning stocks and attainment of CLs. With the operation

of fisheries restricted to estuaries and rivers since 2007, the assessment is focused primarily on

estimating individual river returns from counter data (if available), and catch data and

ranges of rod catch exploitation rates derived from observed values in Irish rivers.

3.2 Data inputs

A description of the data used for the stock assessment and associated catch advice for the

2026 fishery is provided in the relevant sections below. Every effort is made to obtain relevant

data and monitor the performance of stocks (attainment of CL) at the river level and

consequently to assess the status of individual riverine stocks. Several sources of information

are used to estimate stock size, evaluate stock status and formulate associated catch

advice for the upcoming year. These are outlined in the following sections.

3.2.1 Fish counter and trap data

Fish counter and trap data are provided by IFI, the Marine Institute (for Shramore/Burrishoole)

and some private fishery owners. In total, counts from 25 fish counters and traps were

available to assess stocks for the 2026 catch advice (Figure 2; Table 1). The following

approach has been adopted in interpreting the fish counter data and utilising these to

measure the attainment of CL:

 Fish are initially separated into salmon and sea trout by signal strength generated by

the fish passing the counting electrodes and video images.

 A process of validation of the numbers of salmon and sea trout is carried out during

the year whereby a proportion of the counter data (usually a minimum of 15%) is

examined in relation to contemporaneous video footage (resistivity counters) or self-

generated infra-red images (infra-red counters).

 The initial numbers of salmon and sea trout are corrected after video verification and

this correction factor is applied to the remainder of the data.

 It is assumed that all of the downstream counts up to the end of May represent out-

migrating kelts i.e. fish ascending the river in the previous year (except for the Corrib,

Erriff, Lee, Shannon and Erne counters where downstream counts are not available).

 The downstream count from June to December is then subtracted from the upstream

count in the same period, correcting for fish counted upstream but which may then

come back downstream.

 The counter-estimated upstream run of fish is corrected to include salmon caught

and killed downstream of the counter and excludes salmon caught and killed above

the counter.

 Raising factors may be applied to those counters where the possibility of fish moving

over the weir without being counted has been reported. The recorded count is raised

by a further percentage depending on observations. However, it is essential that

these raising factors are based on observations / assessments carried out by local

fisheries authorities or the agencies involved in salmon stock assessment. In general,

the Boyne, Corrib and Dee counts are raised by a factor of two to allow for the partial

nature of these counts.

 Consideration is given to any missing data from intermittent periods of counter

downtime. In such cases, to account for this, data from partial monthly counts can be

raised accordingly or the monthly value can be assigned by using a mean value

taken from the respective month over the preceding five years of valid counts.

 For the 2026 advice, sufficient information was not available for the Owenmore

counter in 2023 and Ballysadare counter in 2025. Therefore, the most recent

preceding five-year time series available were used in the assessment.

 A comprehensive five-year counter time series is also not currently available for the

hydroelectric dam rivers to use in the stock assessment but it is anticipated to be

available in the coming years.

Table 1 Fish counters and traps used in the 2025 assessments for the 2026 catch advice.

Fisheries District River stock

Dundalk

Dee

Drogheda

Boyne

Dublin

Lower Liffey

Kerry

Blackwater

Limerick

Feale

Limerick

Fergus

Limerick

Maigue

Limerick

Mulkear

Galway

Corrib

Galway

Owenboliska

Connemara

Ballynahinch

Connemara

Cashla

Ballinakill

Bunowen

Ballinakill

Culfin

Ballinakill

Dawros

Ballinakill

Erriff (trap)

Ballinakill

Owenglin/Clifden

Bangor

Burrishoole (trap)

Bangor

Carrowmore

Bangor

Owenduff

Bangor

Owenmore

Sligo

Ballysadare

Ballyshannon

Eany

Ballyshannon

Eske

Letterkenny

Lackagh

Figure 2 Fish counter / trap data used in the stock assessment for the 2026 catch advice.

3.2.2 Rod catch data

Rod catch data used in the TEGOS stock assessment is primarily sourced from the Wild

Salmon and Sea Trout Tagging Scheme administered by IFI. The reported logbook rod

catches are adjusted to take into account the numbers of fish that have been caught by

anglers who have not returned their logbook. The adjustment follows Small (1991). In some

instances, directly reported rod catches from IFI Regional Fisheries officers or rod catch data

from managed fisheries (private owners who maintain reliable records), provided these have

been vouched for by IFI officers, are also used. Angling logbook returns had seen a steady

return rate of c. 70% up until 2017. However, there is a declining trend in logbook returns since

2018 and these are just under 50% since 2023. Although accounted for by raising factors,

poor angling data can increase the uncertainty in the assessments made and advice

provided and ultimately may result in more conservative catch advice being provided to

fisheries managers to account for this. The angling catch in the most recent year of the stock

assessment is based on a Fisheries Inspector estimate.

3.2.3 Rod exploitation rates

A rod exploitation rate is applied to the rod catch to provide a stock abundance estimate in

a particular year. Rod exploitation rates derive from observed exploitation rate values from

fish counters or traps on Irish rivers and are supported by information from the scientific

literature and the National Coded-wire Tagging and Tag Recovery Programme. Exploitation

by angling on 1SW grilse stocks varies but is generally between 10% and 30% of the total river

stock available (Milner et al., 2001). These authors quote mean values of 19% for rivers in

England and Wales, while values for specific Irish 1SW salmon fisheries have been estimated

for the River Erriff at 19% between 1986 and 2000 (Gargan et al. 2001), and 15% for the

Burrishoole between 1970 and 2000 (Whelan et al. 2001). Estimates of angling exploitation on

multi-sea-winter stocks are generally higher than those reported for 1SW salmon (Solomon

and Potter 1992) and this has also been observed from Irish rivers with associated fish counter

data (Millane et al. 2017). In 2008, the Standing Scientific Committee on Salmon (SSCS)

evaluated all existing information on individual rod fisheries made available by IFI, including

field observations of fisheries which have known high or low fishing intensity, to derive more

precise estimates of the likely rod exploitation rate on a river-by-river basis. An extensive

review of salmon exploitation rates in Irish rivers (Millane et al., 2017) using rod catch and fish

counter data was published in 2017 but has not yet been incorporated into estimates of

adult salmon returns and further work in this regard is underway as more data is now

available to analyse.

Provided the catch in a river is known, in simple terms, the total stock can be estimated by

extrapolation using an appropriate exploitation rate in the fishery e.g.:

If the rod catch of salmon was 150 fish and the exploitation rate in the fishery was

10%, then the total stock of salmon available to generate this catch would be

estimated as the catch raised by the exploitation rate:

(Catch / Exploitation rate) * 100

In this case (150 / 10) * 100 = 1,500 salmon.

For most rivers, the specific exploitation rates are not known and therefore a range of values

is applied within which the true value is expected to be. Furthermore, as specific rod

exploitation data for Irish rivers with fish counters is available, it has been possible to allocate

all rivers into specific groups representing heavily fished (higher exploitation rate) and

medium fished (medium exploitation rate) to lightly fished rivers (low exploitation rate) based

on field observations (Table 2). This restricts the overall range of values being used to a more

likely range rather than applying the entire range of values observed.

Table 2 Standard exploitation rates applied in the stock assessment.

Fishing intensity Total and 1SW (%) MSW (%)

Low

5 (1

–

12)

12 (6

–

27)

Medium

15 (7

–

35)

High

33 (10

–

50)

31(15

–

46)

Appendix II presents the exploitation rates used for each river for the 2026 advice. Angling

exploitation rates in general were reduced by 20% for year 2021 to account for a reduced

exploitation rate because of COVID-19 restrictions on movement unless Fisheries Inspector

reports indicated otherwise or if the rod catch was greater than twice the five-year average

then no such reductions were applied. In addition, the following decision framework was

used to assign angling exploitation rates to account for periods of drought affecting angling

in summer 2022:

 No further reduction was made to rivers that already had a low exploitation rate

assigned.

 No change to the MSW exploitation rates where MSW stocks were separately

assessed as these comprise the spring period pre-drought.

 No changes were made where no indication was given by the Fisheries Inspectors

that angling catches were affected.

 For rivers with a medium exploitation rate and where the Fisheries Inspectors

indicated that low water levels significantly affected angling, the rate was reduced

to either low or drought medium to reflect lower angling activity due to low water

levels as follows:

 Munster Blackwater medium reduced to 80% of its standard value;

 Easky and Drowes reduced to drought medium; and

 Fane, Gweebarra, Leannan, Owenea & Owentocker, Suir and Tullaghobegly

reduced to low.

Further to this, the following decision framework was used to assign angling exploitation rates

to account for periods of drought affecting angling in early summer 2023 and for the

subsequent prolonged flood conditions experienced in rivers throughout Ireland in July and

August 2023:

 No change to the spring salmon exploitation rates where this stock component is

separately assessed as this comprised the spring period pre-summer drought and

prolonged flood conditions (unless specific information from Fisheries Inspectors on

very low angling effort was reported).

 On total assessed stocks the standard medium and low exploitation rates were

generally reduced by 25% to account both for summer drought and exceptionally

high water throughout July and August which affected angling catchability (unless

specific information suggested otherwise).

 For rivers ‘jointly assessed’ for 1SW and MSW components, a 25% reduction in

exploitation rates was generally applied as a significant proportion of the MSW can

return to such rivers throughout the season (unless specific information from Fisheries

Inspectors suggested that angling was not significantly impacted).

For 2024 angling catches, the standard exploitation rates were generally applied unless

Fisheries Inspectors provided specific information which suggested otherwise.

In general, the standard band of exploitation rates were applied to the 2025 catches as the

climatic conditions were not exceptional to warrant gross changes to the rates, unless

Fisheries Inspectors reported significant reductions in angling effort (e.g. Rivers Easky and

Moy). Although some periods of warm weather reduced angling effort (e.g. fishery closures)

these periods were generally brief (5-7 day periods). Official fishery closures mostly affected

counter rivers and a reduced exploitation rate was applied to the 1SW stock on the River

Moy to reflect lower angling pressure because of this. Bespoke exploitation rates were

derived for the Maine & Currane (switched from using counter data to rod catch data for

stock assessment purposes for this year) as adequate counter information was not available

to base stock assessments on. These were derived from the existing time series of rod catch

and counter data.

TEGOS gave detailed consideration to the potential effect of the fish kill on the Munster

Blackwater as regards assessment of its stock status and related provision of catch advice.

Information was received from IFI South Western River Basin District and IFI R&D officials on the

impacts to juvenile and adult salmon stocks. In relation to adult salmon, it was reported that

much of the returns are likely to have remained below the directly impacted stretch as water

conditions in advance of the fish kill were not conducive to large numbers of salmon moving

further up the river. In general, adult salmon mortalities reported were very low. Surveys post

the fish kill observed juvenile salmon at sites in the affected stretch. Salmon angling was

largely suspended in the period immediately after the fish kill. Subsequent angling activity

with reasonably good catches of salmon was reported in the catchment in general in late

August and September. It was noted that adult salmon returns in 2026 will not be directly

affected by the fish kill as they are currently at sea but there may be consequences in future

years for adult returns as the impacted juvenile cohorts complete their lifecycle. In any case,

lower future return estimates can already be incorporated into the standard stock

assessment process and associated provision of catch advice. Taking all this into account it

was decided not to make any adjustments to the standard approach used to assess this river

stock for the 2026 catch advice.

In general, it is important to note that 2025 angling catches are estimates and the

corresponding exploitation rates will further be reviewed for the 2027 advice once official

catches for 2025 are received.

3.2.4 Commercial catch data

Commercial catch data used in the TEGOS stock assessment is sourced from the Wild Salmon

and Sea Trout Tagging Scheme administered by IFI. Reporting rates are typically at 100% from

this fishery. These commercial fisheries typically operate in river estuaries using draft or snap-

nets. Commercial catches from the most recent five years of available data are used.

3.2.5 Catchment-wide electro-fishing data

Information on juvenile salmon fry abundance is sourced from the IFI catchment-wide

electro-fishing (CWEF) annual programme. Where no fish counter or angling catch data are

available to assess stock status in a river, this information is used as a stock status indicator.

The CWEF multi-annual mean used is calculated on the results of the most recent five annual

surveys (with a minimum requirement of three). A summary of the 2025 programme is

provided in Appendix III.

3.3 Conservation limits

A conservation limit (CL) is a reference point set at a spawning stock level that achieves

long-term maximum sustainable yield as regard harvest. In other words, CLs identify the

number of adult returns a river should have above which fish can be sustainably harvested

without affecting the long-term viability of that stock. For Irish river stocks, CLs have been

established using known stock-recruitment relationships from monitored index rivers and

applying this knowledge to data poor river stocks where this information is not available.

When assigning CLs to such rivers, the relative proportion of male to female salmon and 1SW

to MSW salmon; egg-weight relationships; the latitude of the river and the river habitat

wetted area accessible to salmon are taken into account. Full details on how CLs have

been established for Irish river stocks can be found in White et al. (2016) and in Appendices

IV, V and VI of SSCS (2017) and relevant literature referenced therein.

3.4 Stock assessment and catch advice approach

In line with international advice on salmon stocks, the TEGOS advise that the best way to

meet national and international objectives of conserving salmon stocks in all salmon rivers is

to primarily allow fisheries only in rivers or the estuary of that river, where there is a greater

probability of targeting only the stocks originating from these rivers (i.e. single stock fisheries).

The TEGOS also advise that fisheries should take place only on stocks that are shown to be

meeting their CL with the catch restricted to the estimated surplus above CL. This advice

follows from international best practice as advised by ICES and NASCO.

The main objective of the scientific advice therefore, is to ensure that there are sufficient

spawning salmon remaining after commercial and recreational fisheries to meet the required

CL for that river. In order to do this, the number of salmon which will be available before the

fishery takes place must be “forecast” for each river annually, based on the average returns

in recent years (usually the most recent five years provided sufficient information is available).

The information required for this forecast is derived from commercial catch data and from

extrapolation of rod catch information using exploitation rates or from estimates based on

fish counter information.

3.4.1 Stock assessment and catch advice based on fish counters and traps

For rivers where fish counter information is available, the most recent preceding five-year

period with available data is considered along with any commercial catch and angling

harvest below the counter if relevant. So for the 2026 advice, this information is collated from

the period 2021 to 2025. Angling harvest caught below the fish counter and commercial

catches are added to the counter returns in each corresponding year where there are such

fisheries. For the most recent year of the stock assessment, each of the last three months of

the fish counter data are estimated based on the mean run in that respective month for the

preceding five years of available counter data. In addition, the angling harvest in the most

recent year of the stock assessment is based on a Fisheries Inspector estimate. These

estimates are made because the assessment takes place in October each year for the

following year’s advice. However, these estimates are updated with actual data for that

year in following assessments. Where reliable estimates were available for both a counter or

trap and a rod catch, the values for the counter or trap are used.

3.4.2 Stock assessment and catch advice based on angling catches and associated

exploitation rates

For salmon rivers without fish counters TEGOS use the reported raised salmon rod catch on

each river in conjunction with a range of rod exploitation rates (i.e. the percentage of the

salmon run captured by anglers) and commercial catches if available to provide an

estimate of the total salmon run on each river. Rod catch for the most recent five years of

available data is used. So for the 2026 advice, this information is collated from the period

2021 to 2025. The angling catch in the most recent year of the stock assessment is based on

a Fisheries Inspector estimate. These estimates are made because the assessment takes

place in October each year for the following year’s advice, therefore, official catch data

are not yet available. However, these estimates are updated with actual data for that year

in following assessments.

For the assessment to be appropriate, a reasonably consistent level of fishing activity in the

river is necessary to provide a reliable data stream. For many small rivers, this is not the case,

and this approach is not used where the average reported raised rod catch over the

previous five years is ten salmon or less. In order to ensure a precautionary approach and for

biodiversity objectives, it is advised that such rivers remain closed until additional information

is made available to assess or indicate stock status.

3.4.3 Stock assessment model

The average number of salmon likely to return in the following year is forecast from the fish

counter and/or catch information described above using a Monte Carlo analysis with 75,000

iterations. For assessments based on fish counter data, uncertainty is incorporated by

forecasting such returns from a normal distribution with mean and standard deviation equal

to the average returns and standard deviation of returns from the most recent five years. For

assessments based on angling catches, the annual returns for each of the most recent five

years are forecast by raising the respective annual angling catch using an assigned annual

exploitation rate, with uncertainty incorporated by drawing the annual exploitation rates

from triangular distributions for each Monte Carlo iteration, and subsequently averaging the

resulting annual returns over the five years. Both approaches produces risk plots of the

predicted recruits, CL and resulting surplus/ deficits in relation to a range of catch options for

the river stock assessed. The estimated recruits (i.e. returns) must exceed the CL if there is to

be an allowable catch advised. If returns are likely to be less than the CL then harvest fishing

is not advised.

TEGOS provide standard catch advice at a 75% probability that a specific stock is likely to

meet CL. This follows the recommended procedure used by ICES for the provision of catch

advice for West Greenland (ICES 2022). Where there is no harvest option which will provide a

75% chance of meeting the CL, then there is no surplus of fish to support a harvest

(commercial or rod fishery). For the 2026 advice, the NSSSCIF has requested that TEGOS also

provide catch advice at more conservative probabilities that the CL will be attained (i.e. at

80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 99%). In effect, the more conservative the probability is of meeting

CL, the lower the catch option advised and the less likely a stock is deemed to achieve CL. A

further effect of increasing the certainty that the CL will be met is that particular stocks may

not have a sustainable surplus for harvest than would otherwise be the case. Full details on

the stock assessment and catch advice process can be found in White et al. 2023.

White et al. (2023). Incorporating conservation limit variability and stock risk assessment in

precautionary salmon catch advice at the river scale. ICES of Marine Science, 80(4): 803–822

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/80/4/803/7034404

River-specific data inputs and model outputs including information on the proportion of CL

attained and associated catch advice at the various probabilities of attaining CL are

provided in Appendix IV which accompanies this report.

3.4.4 Catch advice based on catchment-wide electrofishing (CWEF)

Where no fish counter or angling catch data are available to assess the stock status in a river,

catch advice is provided based on catchment-wide electrofishing (CWEF). If the mean

abundance of salmon fry is ≥ 17 fry per five-minute fishing, catch & release-only (C&R-only)

angling is advised by TEGOS. The CWEF mean is calculated on the results of the most recent

five such surveys (with a minimum of three). In general, river stocks under 65% of CL, may also

be advised to open for C&R-only angling based on the CWEF.

3.4.5 Catch advice thresholds for fisheries management advice

In summary, the TEGOS advice thresholds are as follows:

 Where a stock is exceeding its CL a sustainable surplus1 is advised for harvest.

 Where a stock is assessed as meeting between 65% to 99% of the CL, or if the CWEF

mean abundance of salmon fry is ≥ 17 fry per five-minute fishing, C&R-only angling is

advised.

 Where a stock is meeting < 65% of CL and the CWEF mean abundance is < 17 or

there is insufficient data to assess stock status, then a stock is advised to be closed to

all fishing activity.

1 as regards fisheries management, this is typically termed ‘total allowable catch (TAC)’ or ‘quota’.

Where the proportion of estimated returning salmon relative to the CL > 3, estimates are

deemed to be above the threshold of estimate accuracy, and estimated returns are

capped at three times the (median) CL, giving twice the CL as the surplus.

3.5 Additional considerations

An objective of the catch advice is to ensure that harvest fisheries only take place on river

stocks meeting and exceeding CLs. The means to achieve this objective is to primarily allow

only harvest fisheries, which can specifically target single stocks, which are meeting their CLs.

Where a fishery comprises more than one stock, the risk analysis is based on the simultaneous

attainment of CL for all contributing stocks. For the 2026 advice, Killary Harbour (Bundorragha

and Erriff river stocks), the Owenmore Estuary (Carrowmore Lake and Owenmore River

stocks), Castlemaine Harbour area (Maine, Laune and Caragh river stocks) and the relatively

insignificant Tullaghan Ferry fishery (Carrowmore Lake, and Owenduff and Owenmore river

stocks) were considered as true potential mixed-stock fisheries.

Mixed-stock fisheries will always present greater risks towards achieving sustainable

exploitation compared to stocks that are exploited separately however, because of

uncertainties or variability in the proportion of the catch originating from the weaker of the

stocks. This is particularly true when there are large differences in the relative numbers of fish

in each stock as it may be difficult to estimate the impacts on the smaller stocks. Therefore,

to avoid intercepting fish from other rivers, particularly those which are not meeting CLs, the

general advice is to operate all fisheries within the estuarine zone of the river stock for which

the catch advice is being given and not a common bay where several river stocks may be

present. Careful consideration must be made of local topography, fishing practices, number

of contributing stocks and their status and the ability to discriminate the contributing stocks

and manage the fishery effectively.

In a number of rivers the CL will be achieved by the contributions of both 1SW (grilse) and

2SW (two-sea-winter) / multi-sea-winter (MSW) fish. There is conservation of biodiversity and

fisheries development value in identifying and protecting both life history types. It is important

for fisheries management to be able to determine how much of the CL is likely to be met by

either 1SW or 2SW/MSW fish and to regulate fisheries for both components separately. As

such, advice has been provided on 1SW and 2SW separately where a significant early run

component has been identified and can be managed separately on the assumption that all

fish counted or caught before 31st May are considered to be 2SW/MSW fish (except for the

Slaney where data are available on the typical proportions of 1SW and 2SW/MSW salmon

encountered through the run).

4. Status of stocks and precautionary catch advice for 2026

4.1 River-specific catch advice

In general, the TEGOS advises that:

 harvest of salmon should only be allowed on stocks from rivers where a surplus above

their CL is identified and that no more than this surplus should be harvested. In some

rivers where the available surplus is minor and impractical to manage, management

may decide to operate such fisheries as C&R-only.

 harvest fisheries should not take place on stocks from rivers without an identifiable

surplus above the CL. C&R-only angling is advised on rivers where stocks under CL are

meeting at least 65% of CL or the juvenile fry index is at least 17.

 no harvest fisheries should take place on those stocks from 67 rivers where insufficient

fish counter or rod catch data is available to assess salmon stock status. The TEGOS

advise that these rivers remain closed to harvest until such time as additional

information becomes available to assess the status of these stocks relative to their

CLs.

Overall, catch advice for the 2026 season is provided for 144 salmon stocks. In addition,

separate assessments are made for 16 rivers which are considered to have a significant 2SW

stock component. A summary of the number of stocks in each catch advice category is

presented below for:

 total or one-sea-winter (1SW) stocks including those assessed for CL attainment at

various probabilities of exceeding CL (Table 3 and Figure 3); and

 for two-sea-winter (2SW) stocks including those assessed for CL attainment at various

probabilities of exceeding CL (Table 4 and Figure 4).

Table 3 Number of total or one-sea-winter stocks in each catch advice category including those

assessed for CL attainment at various probabilities of exceeding CL.

Advice 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Surplus 41 35 29 23 15 11

C&R 29 31 33 36 38 36

Close 74 78 82 85 91 97

Table 4 Number of two-sea-winter stocks in each catch advice category including those assessed for

CL attainment at various probabilities of exceeding CL.

Advice 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Surplus 8 7 6 6 5 3

C&R 5 5 5 5 5 7

Close 3 4 5 5 6 6

Figure 3 Number of total or one-sea-winter stocks in each catch advice category including those

assessed for CL attainment at various probabilities of exceeding CL.

Figure 4 Number of two-sea-winter stocks in each catch advice category including those assessed for

CL attainment at various probabilities of exceeding CL.

A summary of the total or one-sea-winter (1SW) stock catch advice provided between 2007

and 2026 at the 75% probability of achieving CL is provided in Figure 5. Since 2022, this shows

a moderate decline in the number of river stocks above CL with an advised surplus as well as

those stocks closed to all fishing; and a moderate increase in the number of river stocks

under CL that are meeting at least 65% of CL which are advised open for C&R-only fishing.

Figure 5 Summary of status of total or one-sea-winter stocks and scientific catch advice provided

between 2007 and 2026 including those stocks assessed at the 75% probability of achieving

conservation limit.

In general, it is clear that the overall proportion of Irish rivers with a good population status is

moderate. Of the 144 salmon designated rivers, there are currently 62 which are in or partially

intersect with SACs where salmon have a qualifying interest under the EU Habitats Directive,

48 of which are assessed for CL attainment. Of these, only 26 are attaining CL at the 75%

probability (Appendix V). In addition, there are stocks in four major rivers used for hydro-

power which are highly likely to be well below their CLs above the impoundments i.e. Upper

Liffey (Dublin), Upper Lee (Cork), Upper Shannon (Limerick) and the River Erne. However,

insufficient data is available to directly assess their stock status. Following the scientific advice

already provided for other rivers, there should be no harvest fisheries on wild salmon in these

specific rivers until such time as significant improvements to the generation of self-sustaining

runs of salmon above these impoundments has been made within the context of agreed

restoration plans.

A summary of the river-specific catch advice for the 2026 season at various probabilities of

attaining CL is presented in Table 5. More detailed catch advice data including catch

options at various probabilities of attaining CL where relevant are provided in Appendix IV

which accompanies this report.

Table 5 River-specific catch advice for the 2026 season including for assessed stocks at various probability categories of attaining CL. Mean

CWEF value is also provided.

District River Stock Assessed CWEF 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Dundalk

Castletown

Total

Dundalk

Dee

1SW

12.9

Dundalk

Dee

2SW

12.9

Dundalk

Fane

Total

14.1

C&R

Dundalk

Flurry

Total

9.32

Dundalk

Glyde

Total

13.4

C&R

Drogheda

Boyne

Total

13.49

Dublin

Dargle

Total

4.37

Dublin

Lower Liffey Inc Rye

Total

13.91

Dublin

Upper Liffey US Lexlip

Total

8.45

Dublin

Vartry

Total

4.91

Wexford

Avoca

Total

5.27

Wexford

Owenavorragh

Total

3.62

Wexford

Slaney

1SW

14.9

C&R

Wexford

Slaney

2SW

14.9

Waterford

Barrow and Pollmounty

Total

22.3

C&R

Waterford

Colligan

Total

10.47

Waterford

Corock R

Total

9.24

Waterford

Mahon

Total

6.31

Waterford

Nore

Total

15.35

C&R

Waterford

Owenduff

Total

6.57

Waterford

Suir, Clodiagh, Lingaun, Blackwater

Total

14.63

C&R

Waterford

Tay

Total

6.81

Lismore

Blackwater, Glenshelane, Finisk

Total

14.9

Surplus

C&R

Lismore

Bride

Total

19.4

C&R

Lismore

Lickey

Total

13.38

Lismore

Tourig

Total

14.14

Lismore

Womanagh

Total

5.77

Cork

Adrigole

Total

15.4

Cork

Argideen

Total

20.2

C&R

District River Stock Assessed CWEF 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Cork

Bandon

Total

21.25

Surplus

Cork

Coomhola

Total

33.1

Surplus

C&R

Cork

Glengarriff

Total

7.9

Surplus

Cork

Ilen

1SW

Surplus

C&R

Cork

Ilen

2SW

Surplus

Cork

Lower Lee

Total

15.8

Surplus

C&R

Cork

Mealagh

Total

18.25

Surplus

Cork

Owenacurra

Total

17.7

C&R

Cork

Owvane

Total

Surplus

C&R

Cork

Upper Lee

Total

0.5

Kerry

Behy

Total

7.17

Kerry

Blackwater

Total

20.9

Surplus

C&R

Kerry

Caragh

1SW

Surplus

Kerry

Caragh

2SW

Surplus

C&R

Kerry

Carhan

Total

9.91

Kerry

Cloonee

Total

29.5

C&R

Kerry

Croanshagh

Total

C&R

Kerry

Emlagh

Total

5.1

Kerry

Emlaghmore

Total

7.12

Kerry

Feohanagh

Total

11.46

Kerry

Ferta

Total

13.06

Surplus

C&R

Kerry

Finnihy

Total

Kerry

Inney

Total

22.1

C&R

Kerry

Kealincha

Total

Kerry

Laune and Cottoners

1SW

21.6

Surplus

Kerry

Laune and Cottoners

2SW

21.6

Surplus

Kerry

Lee

Total

0.52

Kerry

Lough Fada

Total

1.23

Kerry

Maine

Total

34.1

Surplus

C&R

Kerry

Milltown

Total

14.2

Kerry

Owenascaul

Total

13.9

District River Stock Assessed CWEF 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Kerry

Owenmore

Total

26.9

Surplus

Kerry

Owenreagh

Total

7.98

Kerry

Owenshagh

Total

13.4

Kerry

Roughty

Total

22.5

Surplus

C&R

Kerry

Sheen

Total

34.07

Surplus

C&R

Kerry

Sneem

Total

Surplus

C&R

Kerry

Waterville

1SW

24.5

Surplus

Kerry

Waterville

2SW

24.5

Surplus

Limerick

Annageeragh

Total

3.41

Limerick

Aughyvackeen

Total

1.75

Limerick

Deel

Total

1.14

Limerick

Doonbeg

Total

14.

C&R

Limerick

Feale, Galey and Brick

1SW

24.1

Surplus

C&R

Limerick

Feale, Galey and Brick

2SW

24.1

Surplus

C&R

Limerick

Fergus

Total

6.9

Limerick

Inagh

Total

4.87

Limerick

Maigue

Total

11.4

Limerick

Mulkear

Total

23.4

C&R

Limerick

Owenagarney

Total

8.42

Limerick

Shannon (Lower)

Total

32.3

C&R

Limerick

Shannon (Upper)

Total

Limerick

Skivaleen

Total

9.95

Galway

Aille (Galway)

Total

Galway

Clarinbridge

Total

6.67

Galway

Corrib

Total

Surplus

C&R

Galway

Kilcolgan/Dunkellin

Total

6.99

Galway

Knock

Total

14.73

Galway

Owenboliska R (Spiddal)

Total

5.6

Connemara

Ballynahinch

Total

14.8

Surplus

C&R

Connemara

Cashla

Total

10.8

Surplus

C&R

Connemara

L. Na Furnace

Total

District River Stock Assessed CWEF 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Connemara

Screebe

Total

11.5

C&R

Ballinakill

Bundorragha

1SW

21.99

Surplus

Ballinakill

Bundorragha

2SW

21.99

C&R

Ballinakill

Bunowen

Total

13.6

Surplus

C&R

Ballinakill

Carrownisky

Total

20.2

Surplus

C&R

Ballinakill

Culfin

Total

30.8

Surplus

Ballinakill

Dawros

Total

Surplus

lose

Ballinakill

Erriff

Total

29.86

C&R

Ballinakill

Owenglin

Total

20.9

Surplus

C&R

Ballinakill

Owenwee (Belclare)

Total

9.3

C&R

Bangor

Carrowmore

1SW

25.8

Surplus

C&R

Bangor

Carrowmore

2SW

25.8

Surplus

C&R

Bangor

Glenamoy

Total

16.48

C&R

Bangor

Muingnabo

Total

1.15

Bangor

Newport

1SW

14.1

Bangor

Newport

2SW

14.1

C&R

Bangor

Owenduff (Glenamong)

1SW

10.2

Surplus

C&R

Bangor

Owenduff (Glenamong)

2SW

10.2

Surplus

C&R

Bangor

Owengarve

Total

5.98

Bangor

Owenmore

Total

27.7

Surplus

C&R

Bangor

Srahmore (Burrishoole)

Total

4.3

Ballina

Ballinglen

Total

7.55

Ballina

Brusna

Total

9.79

Ballina

Cloonaghmore

Total

12.3

Ballina

Easky

Total

7.13

C&R

Ballina

Leaffony

Total

3.86

Ballina

Moy

Total

Surplus

C&R

Sligo

Ballysadare

Total

Surplus

C&R

Sligo

Drumcliff

Total

17.7

Surplus

C&R

Sligo

Garvogue (Bonnet)

1SW

15.53

C&R

Sligo

Garvogue (Bonnet)

2SW

15.53

C&R

District River Stock Assessed CWEF 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Sligo

Grange

Total

4.42

Ballyshannon

Abbey

Total

Ballyshannon

Ballintra (Murvagh R).

Total

12.72

Ballyshannon

Bungosteen

Total

10.6

Ballyshannon

Drowes

1SW

Surplus

Ballyshannon

Drowes

2SW

Surplus

C&R

Ballyshannon

Duff

Total

16.3

Ballyshannon

Eany

Total

19.6

C&R

Ballyshannon

Erne

Total

0.2

Ballyshannon

Eske

Total

C&R

Ballyshannon

Glen

Total

15.82

Surplus

C&R

Ballyshannon

Laghy

Total

9.8

Ballyshannon

Oily

Total

21.1

C&R

Ballyshannon

Owenwee (Yellow R)

Total

13.24

Surplus

Letterkenny

Bracky

Total

11.24

Letterkenny

Clady

Total

24.5

C&R

Letterkenny

Clonmany

Total

9.81

Letterkenny

Crana

Total

22.12

C&R

Letterkenny

Culoort

Total

Letterkenny

Donagh

Total

3.13

Letterkenny

Glenagannon

Total

5.82

Letterkenny

Glenna

Total

5.6

Letterkenny

Gweebarra

1SW

17.8

Surplus

C&R

Letterkenny

Gweebarra

2SW

17.8

C&R

Letterkenny

Gweedore (Crolly R.)

Total

13.7

Surplus

C&R

Letterkenny

Isle (Burn)

Total

1.06

Letterkenny

Lackagh

1SW

21.1

C&R

Letterkenny

Lackagh

2SW

21.1

C&R

Letterkenny

Leannan

1SW

15.57

C&R

Letterkenny

Leannan

2SW

15.57

Letterkenny

Mill

Total

District River Stock Assessed CWEF 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Letterkenny

Owenamarve

Total

6.67

Letterkenny

Owenea and Owentocker

Total

38.6

Surplus

C&R

Letterkenny

Ray

Total

11.9

C&R

Letterkenny

Straid

Total

0.05

Letterkenny

Swilly

Total

11.74

Letterkenny

Tullaghobegly

Total

7.94

Surplus

C&R

NA= no data available.

4.2 Mixed-stock catch advice

Owing to the different status of individual stocks within the stock complex, mixed-stock

fisheries present particular threats to stock status (ICES 2019). The TEGOS strongly advise that

all fisheries should operate only on the target stock as close to the river mouth as possible or

within the river to achieve this. Even where all exploited stocks in a common estuary are

meeting their CLs, mixed-stock fisheries introduce greater uncertainty into predicting the

effects of management measures and pose a greater threat to small stocks or populations,

especially if these are of low relative productivity and/or subject to high exploitation. As the

number of stocks (or populations) increases, the number of fish that must escape from such

fisheries in order to meet CLs must also increase. When the number of populations is too

large, it may be impossible to ensure a high probability of the simultaneous achievement of

spawner requirements in each individual unit.

The objective of the catch advice is to ensure that harvest fisheries operate only in estuaries

where stocks in contributing systems meet and exceed CLs. There are potentially three

primary mixed-stock commercial fisheries operating in estuaries, namely, Castlemaine (Kerry);

Killary (Ballinakill); and Owenmore Estuary (Bangor). In addition, a minor mixed-stock fishery

may potentially operate in Tullaghan Ferry (Bangor).

Overall, catch advice for the 2026 season is provided for three primary potential mixed-stock

salmon fisheries. This is presented in Table 6 and Table 7 below.

Table 6 Catch advice for each of the three primary potential mixed-stock fisheries at various

probabilities of attaining CL.

Advice 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Castlemaine Harbour Surplus Surplus Surplus* Close** Close** Close**

Killary Close*** Close*** Close Close Close Close

Owenmore Estuary Surplus Close Close Close Close Close

* contributary River Maine only has a surplus of 8.

**contributary River Maine is under CL;

***contributary River Erriff is under CL;

Table 7 Advised harvest surplus for the three primary potential mixed-stock fisheries at various

probabilities of attaining CL for distribution amongst the relevant contributory commercial and angling

fisheries.

Advice 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Castlemaine Harbour 3034 2847 2627 - - -

Killary - - - - - -

Owenmore Estuary 185 - - - - -

In general, the TEGOS advises that:

 harvest of salmon should only be allowed where a surplus above their CL is identified

and that no more than this surplus should be harvested. In some rivers where the

available surplus is minor and impractical to manage, management may decide to

operate such fisheries as C&R-only.

 If a contributory river stock has no advised surplus, then the mixed-stock fisheries

should not operate.

 If the mixed-stock common embayment fishery is operated then the advised

surpluses for the individual contributary river stocks are disregarded and the following

should apply:

o The Common Embayment Castlemaine advised surplus (if available) is applied to

the Maine, Caragh 1SW and Laune 1SW fisheries and Castlemaine when the

Castlemaine commercial fishery is operated. It can be distributed among the

following fisheries: Castlemaine, Laune, Caragh and Maine commercial fisheries;

total rods on the Maine; and 1SW rods on the Laune and Caragh. The MSW advice

for rod fisheries in the Caragh and Laune is provided separately.

o The Common Embayment Killary advised surplus (if available) is applied to the

Killary, Bundorragha 1SW and Erriff fisheries when the Killary commercial fishery is

operated. It can be distributed among the following fisheries: Killary commercial

fishery; total rods on the Erriff; and 1SW rods on the Bundorragha. The MSW advice

for the rod fishery in the Bundorragha is provided separately.

o The Common Estuary Owenmore advised surplus (if available) is applied to the

Owenmore Estuary, Tullaghan Ferry (in part if also operating), Carrowmore 1SW

and Owenmore fisheries when the Owenmore Estuary commercial fishery is

operated. It can be distributed among the following fisheries: Owenmore Estuary

commercial fishery; Tullaghan Ferry commercial fishery (in part, with additional

surplus allocated from the Owenduff 1SW surplus); Owenmore and Carrowmore

commercial fisheries; total rods on the Owenmore; and 1SW rods on the

Carrowmore. The MSW advice for the rod fishery in the Carrowmore is provided

separately.

 Detailed consideration should be given by Fisheries Managers to the operation of

mixed-stock fisheries where an individual river surplus in a contributary river to the

mixed-stock is low. This is because the TEGOS has limited knowledge on the specific

allocation of the advised surplus amongst the various angling and commercial

fisheries that may occur there. For example, for the Castlemaine Harbour common

embayment a surplus of 2,627 is available at the 85% probability of attaining CL.

However, the individual advised harvest surplus for the River Maine stock at the 85%

probability of attaining CL is eight salmon. Therefore, the proportion of River Maine

salmon likely to be intercepted in the Castlemaine mixed-stock fishery, if operated,

should not exceed eight salmon and the quota set should be distributed

appropriately between the contributory fisheries with precaution to ensure this.

5. Recent trends in salmon stock status

Since 2007, scientific advice has been provided on an individual river basis regarding salmon

stock status. While scientific advice will continue to be presented on an individual river basis,

data from fish counters, where reliable long-term data is available, has been combined

(Figure 6) in order to provide an overview of trends in salmon stock status nationally.

5.1 Fish counter time series

The number of counters installed and used in stock assessments has increased since river-

specific advice began in 2007. The analysis is based on data obtained from a minimum of 9

to a maximum of 31 fish counters with a reasonable time series of data. The counter time

series runs from 2002 to the most recent full year. Corrected average yearly fish counts can

be calculated using a generalised linear model (GLM) to show the overall annual trend

across the available counters. This provides a benchmarked comparison of how annual

salmon returns have varied over this time period. Figure 6 shows variation in the mean values

for numbers of salmon counted through counters from 2002 to 2025, peaking in 2007 which

coincided with the cessation of offshore drift netting.

Figure 6 Marginal GLM Least Squares-mean standardised number of salmon counted through counters

operated between 2002 and 2025 (± 95% confidence intervals – grey band). The number of counters is

shown at the top. The linear trend over the full time period (red dashed line), and between 2007 and

the present (blue dashed line) are also indicated. Note that the drift net fishery ceased at the end of

the 2006 season.

Figure 7 Marginal GLM LS-mean standardised number of (a) 1SW grilse and (b) MSW counted through

counters operated between 2002 and 2025 (± 95% confidence intervals – grey band). The linear trend

over the full time period (red dashed line), and between 2007 and the present (blue dashed line) are

also indicated.

The overall linear trend of the fish counter time series indicates a decline in mean

abundance which has become more marked since 2007. A minor upturn was evident from

the low of 2015 until 2017. Since 2020, a declining trend is generally evident with 2023

representing the lowest value in the whole time series. However, 2024 shows a minor increase

relative to the preceding two years followed by a decline in 2025 which is the third lowest

estimate in the timeseries. Figure 7a shows trends in returns of one-sea-winter (1SW) grilse. As

1SW grilse constitute the majority of the overall salmon stock in Ireland, it is unsurprising that

the overall trend and year to year variations in mean stock abundance are similar as was

observed for the total salmon stock (Figure 6). Figure 7b presents trends in returning multi-

sea-winter (MSW) salmon, including spring salmon which predominantly return from January

to May inclusive. A moderately declining trend is evident in this stock component over the

time series. However, the estimate for 2025 represents an improvement over 2023 and 2024.

Overall, 18 of the 25 fish counter returns estimates in the most recent year are below their

mean counts from preceding years (Figure 8).

Figure 8 The proportional change in the salmon count in 2025 compared to the preceding multi-annual

mean count per fish counter (left panel); Mean salmon count and associated range (min, max) of the

preceding time series (indicated by black circle and bar, respectively) in comparison to the most

recent year’s count (indicated by red X) (right panel).

5.2 National returns and estimates of spawners relative to CL attainment

The ICES Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS) provides annual scientific advice

to the inter-governmental body NASCO for the management of fisheries in the North Atlantic.

In this advice, Irish wild salmon stocks are included as part of the southern complex in the

North-east Atlantic region, along with French, south-west Icelandic and UK stocks. As part of

the ICES advice process, for the southern stock complex and its constituent jurisdictions,

annual stock assessments and periodic stock forecasts (every one to three years) are

undertaken (ICES 2025).

For the ICES WGNAS assessments, stocks are divided into maturing 1SW i.e. grilse fish who

spend a single winter at sea before returning to Ireland; and non-maturing 1SW i.e. multi-sea

winter fish who spend, typically two, or more years at sea before returning to Ireland. The

following stock statuses are considered:

 PFA (Pre-fisheries abundance): Abundance of maturing 1SW and non-maturing 1SW in

the ocean before any fisheries or natural mortality on their return migration takes place.

 CL (conservation limit). This is the sum of the conservation limits of all Irish salmon rivers.

 SER (Spawner escapement reserve). This level on the graph indicates the minimum

amount of fish that are required in the PFA phase to meet the national CL set for each

stock component. The SER accounts for the natural mortality that occurs between the

PFA stage and the return of fish to home-waters. It is derived from the national CL by

accounting for the natural mortality and distant water fisheries that occur during the

fish’s residence at sea.

 1SW / MSW returns: number of fish returning to the Irish coast after high seas fisheries

and taking account natural mortality rates while at sea.

 1SW / MSW spawners: number of spawning fish in Irish rivers.

5.2.1 One-sea-winter returns and spawners

The ICES advice shows that 1SW returns to Ireland before fisheries take place were above CL

from 1971 to 2008 and 2010 to 2012, and below CL in 2009 and 2011 and since 2013. (Figure

9). Indeed, reflecting this, following exploitation, spawners have been at or below CL for 31

of the 52 years in the time series and have not exceeded CL since 2004 (ICES 2025).

5.2.2 Multi-sea-winter returns and spawners

National MSW returns to Ireland exceeded CL until 1990 after which values fluctuated around

the CL until 2004. Since then, returns of MSW fish have been generally well below CL (Figure

9). While the management aim is to ensure that MSW spawners are above CL after any

fishery takes place, this has only been achieved once since 1988 and not since 2003 (ICES

2025).

Figure 9 Top panel: Pre-Fisheries Abundance of Irish 1SW and MSW salmon stocks (solid line) with

respective Spawner Escapement Reserve indicated (dashed line). Mid panels: Estimated return of 1SW

and MSW salmon to Ireland prior to homewater fisheries and spawners (solid line) relative to national CL

(dashed line). Bottom panels: Egg deposition from 1SW and MSW spawners (solid line) relative to CL in

eggs (dashed line). Orange line and shaded area represent hindcasting of the historical timeseries;

blue line and shaded area represent forecasting obtained under a scenario with zero catches in all

fisheries (for PFA and returns). Solid line is the median value and shaded areas are 90% credibility

intervals. (source: ICES 2025).

5.2.3 Stock forecast (2025 to 2028)

For the southern North-east Atlantic stock complex (2025 to 2028), of which Ireland is a

constituent jurisdiction, the median estimates of maturing and non-maturing PFA are forecast

to remain relatively stable for the years 2025 to 2028, though they remain amongst the lowest

estimates in the time-series. For the maturing PFA, the median is forecast to be below the SER

for the years 2025 to 2028. For the non-maturing PFA, the median is also forecast to remain

generally below the SER. As regard the Irish national stock, for both maturing and non-

maturing stocks, the median estimate of PFA is forecast to decline to the lowest estimates in

the time-series and be below the SER for the years 2025 to 2028 (ICES 2025). This modelled

projection essentially predicts that there will not be enough Irish one-sea-winter or multi-sea-

winter salmon present in the ocean to meet our national CL during this period.

5.2.4 Additional considerations

It is important to note that overall trends in our salmon stocks summarised at the national or

international scale do not necessarily reflect those observed in specific individual rivers where

inconsistent trends can be evident in a comparable time period. Indeed, ICES have

emphasised that national stock CLs are not appropriate for the management of homewater

fisheries. This is because of the relative imprecision of the national CLs and because they do

not consider differences in the status of different river stocks or sub-river populations. They

recommend that management at finer scales should consider individual river stock status.

This highlights the importance of evaluating the status of our stocks at a river-specific level as

a primary basis to inform sustainable fisheries management decisions.

6 Advice for stock rebuilding

6.1 International guidance on stock rebuilding

The terms of reference of the TEGOS are outlined earlier in this report. One of these

relates to salmon stocks below CL.

“In cases where stocks are determined to be below CLs, the TEGOS shall advise the

level to which catches should be reduced or other measures adopted on a fishery

basis in order to ensure a high degree of probability of meeting the CLs”.

Other measures to be adopted can relate to stock rebuilding programmes for salmon

stocks below CL. In 1998, NASCO adopted the “precautionary approach” to fisheries

management. The NASCO Agreement on the Adoption of the Precautionary

Approach states, that:

‘an objective for the management of salmon fisheries is to provide the diversity and

abundance of salmon stocks’

or in other words to maintain both the productive capacity and diversity of salmon

stocks. NASCO provides an interpretation of how this is to be achieved. Management

measures should be aimed at maintaining all stocks above their CLs by the use of

management targets (MTs). This is highlighted in the NASCO Guidelines for the

Management of Salmon Fisheries (NASCO 2009) where they should be established at

a level above the CL to assist fishery managers in ensuring that there is a high

probability of stocks exceeding their CLs. The precautionary approach is an

integrated approach that requires, inter alia, that stock rebuilding programmes (SRPs)

be developed for stocks that are below CLs. Indeed, NASCO have developed

Guidelines on the Use of Stock Rebuilding Programmes (SRP) in the Context of the

Precautionary Management of Salmon Stocks in 2025, CNL(25)50. An SRP is likely to be

a suite of management measures designed to restore a wild Atlantic salmon stock to

a sustainable level as measured using a defined river-specific target. The nature and

extent of the programme will depend upon the status of the stock and the pressures

that it is facing. While the short-term response to a stock failing to achieve its river-

specific target may be to reduce or eliminate exploitation, there will generally be a

need to identify and address the causes of the stock decline along with other actions.

NASCO recommend that SRPs should be developed for all stocks that are failing to

exceed their CLs and also consider SRPs where the long-term viability of the stock is at

risk of failing to exceed its CL.

NASCO’s SRP guidelines were developed to inter alia provide a link between several

other guidance documents developed by NASCO in relation to the application of the

Precautionary Approach, including the Decision Structure for the Management of

Salmon Fisheries, and the Plan of Action for the Protection and Restoration of Atlantic

Salmon Habitats. Supporting this, NASCO has adopted Guidelines for the

Management of Salmon Fisheries, CNL(09)43, Guidelines for the Protection, Restoration

and Enhancement of Salmon Habitat, CNL(10)51, and Guidance on Best

Management Practices to Address Impacts of Sea Lice and Escaped Farmed Salmon

on Wild Salmon Stocks, SLG(09)5, which contain elements relevant to stock rebuilding.

In 2024 NASCO agreed a Ten-Year Strategy and Action Plan which forms the basis for

its fourth reporting cycle, starting in 2026, in which Performance Indicators and

Conservation Commitment Reports will be used to measure progress towards the

achievement of NASCO’s Resolutions, Agreements and Guidelines. As such, Ireland

now has obligations under these measures to develop and implement urgent and

transformative actions to slow the decline of wild Atlantic salmon populations over the

next 10 years. This should be done by targeting priority pressures on our stocks as

identified in our national assessment of human stressors impacting Irish Atlantic salmon

populations (Figure 10). The top stressor identified was climate change in the North

Atlantic Ocean. However, given the formidable scale of this stressor and little ability to

directly address this pressure, the three priority pressures identified by Ireland are

pollution, habitat degradation and aquaculture (NASCO 2025a; NASCO 2025b). For

each of these priority pressures, actions are required to mitigate for and address these

threats. It is important to note that over-exploitation as a pressure scored reasonably

low in the assessment mainly due to a reduction in exploitation in Irish salmon fisheries

in recent decades, annual provision of catch advice based on scientific stock

assessment to ensure river fisheries are sustainably exploited and the considerable

extent of the protection work carried out by IFI against illegal fishing, both at sea and

in rivers. This does not of course preclude Ireland addressing measures outside of the

three priority pressures identified but highlights the general importance to salmon for

Ireland to undertake urgent and transformative actions to address the priority

pressures identified.

Jurisdictions must submit their draft Conservation Commitments Reports to NASCO by

5th February 2026 which outline actions that will be taken under the priority pressures

identified in their national stressors assessment.

Figure 10 National assessment of human stressors impacting Irish Atlantic salmon populations

(adapted from NASCO 2025b).

6.2 Factors affecting stock rebuilding programmes for Irish salmon stocks

Closure of marine mixed-stock fisheries for salmon and even complete closure of some

salmon rivers to harvest fisheries may not ensure that all rivers will meet or exceed CLs

in the short term. There are several identifiable problems militating against immediate

recovery and this must be taken into account for future management over and

above management of fisheries (Thorstad et al. 2021). In some instances, such as

large-scale changes in the North Atlantic Ocean-atmosphere system that could

contribute to poorer marine survival of salmon, it may not be possible to reverse the

specific problems directly. Some of these specific problems related to marine survival

are outlined below.

Marine survival

Decreased survival rate in the marine environment, rather than in natal rivers, seems to

explain the current poor state of many salmon populations (ICES 2016). Marine survival

of Irish salmon has declined from 15% to 20% of juveniles returning as adults to Irish

rivers in the 1970s and 1980s to a current level which fluctuates around the 5% level.

Current estimates of marine survival are amongst the lowest in the time series and

suggest that based on recent years, under 5% of the wild smolts that go to sea from

Irish rivers are surviving (i.e. under 5 adults returning for every 100 out-migrating smolts).

This data is based on coded-wire and PIT tagging programmes run by IFI and the

Marine Institute. These programmes tag smolts going to sea in index rivers and assess

the subsequent proportion that return to the river and coastal environment as adults.

However, rivers that monitor marine return rates of Atlantic salmon frequently show

variable return rates between salmon populations in separate and in overlapping

geographic regions, denoting that a variety of factors at local, regional and

continental scales control the success rate of out-migrating smolt to adult returns (ICES

2023; Figure 11). Marine survival can be partitioned into coastal (transitional and

inshore waters) and oceanic (offshore and open ocean) components. The coastal

component operates during the first migration of juvenile salmon (smolts) out of their

natal river. Events during such early life stages in the freshwater and estuarine

environment can have an impact on the subsequent marine survival of salmon.

Coastal pressures include local pollution, predation, and increased rates of sea lice

infestation associated with salmon aquaculture.

The North Atlantic Ocean undergoes cyclical changes, showing multi-decadal

variability in sea surface temperatures, ocean circulation currents and ecosystem

productivity. Well described sources of this long-term internal (natural) variability

include the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation

(NAO). The AMO is particularly relevant to the marine ecology of Atlantic salmon and

generates a long-term oscillation of North Atlantic conditions resulting in “warm” and

“cool” phases. In general, Atlantic salmon marine survival and growth rates correlate

with shifts in the AMO phase (Condron et al. 2005; Friedland et al. 2014). The AMO

exhibited a pronounced cool phase during the 1970s toward the late 1980s, a period

of high salmon returns, and a warming phase since ~1995, when declining trends in

the abundance of salmon were observed across the North Atlantic basin.

Furthermore, externally forced trends related to anthropogenically-driven climate

change can interact with and modify the multi-decadal variability of the North

Atlantic Ocean, including the AMO (Terray, 2012). The combination of the current

“warm” phase of the AMO and the underlying warming trend due to climate change

is strongly implicated in the current North Atlantic-wide record low abundance of

salmon, with multiple regions, including Ireland, recording all-time low salmon returns

in 2023 or 2024 (ICES 2025). In this general context it is important to note that the

relatively high returns of salmon observed in the decades prior to the 1990s (ICES time

series) may represent a high point for the stock internationally and not necessarily

reflect the baseline state to be expected for the species.

Ocean warming can negatively impact oceanic growth and survival of Atlantic

salmon (Todd et al. 2008; McCarthy et al. 2008; Friedland et al. 2009; Friedland et al.

2003). Whilst the marine ecology of Atlantic salmon is still poorly understood, the

mechanism for reduced survival under such oceanic conditions may be linked to

observed changes in marine trophic regimes in the North Atlantic, with declines in

salmon survival and growth related to shifts in primary production and zooplankton

abundance (Beaugrand and Reid, 2012; Mills et al. 2013; Defriez et al. 2016). Of

particular significance was the detection of an abrupt shift in growth conditions for

Atlantic salmon around 2005 (Vollset et al. 2022), which coincides with accelerated

declines in numbers of Irish fish returning to natal rivers. However, the exact

mechanisms at play leading to reduced marine survival are still not fully understood

and further evidence relating to changes in primary production at sea leading to

changes in prey distribution, abundance and energetic content require further

investigation. Other areas of investigation include direct mortality impacts related to

predator abundance and distribution (fish/seabirds/mammals) and by-catch in

pelagic fisheries.

Figure 11 The factors which individually and synergistically affect the marine survival of salmon

and which cause significant changes to life history responses such as population structure,

fitness and size.

A particular challenge toward understanding the future fate of Atlantic salmon relates

to the challenge of forecasting the AMO at decadal timescales with a high degree of

confidence, owing to the complex interaction between natural internal variability and

long-term anthropogenically-driven climate forcing (e.g. Hao et al. 2025). A shift

towards a cooler AMO phase, which ostensibly may improve marine survival rates of

Atlantic salmon, could emerge in future decades but high uncertainty remains. Given

such uncertainty, and current concerns that large-scale marine stressors at the North

Atlantic scale are impacting salmon, management actions to improve survival in, and

production from, the freshwater and coastal phase of the life cycle are critical in the

attempt to safeguard the species through this period of record low marine survival.

Maximising the number of healthy, resilient wild smolts migrating from rivers is currently

the most effective strategy toward achieving this (e.g. Thorstad et al. 2021).

Freshwater

Within river systems and transitional coastal waters, the principal threats to the

sustainability of salmon stocks include:

 water quality issues from agriculture, domestic waste-water treatment and

forestry; and urban waste-water pressures;

 hydromorphological pressures that debilitate spawning and juvenile rearing

habitat;

 marine salmon aquaculture;

 climate change stressors;

 migration barriers;

 invasive alien species;

 heightened predation pressures and disease; and

 over-exploitation of stocks and illegal fishing.

These may act at local and regional scales and individual stocks may be

synergistically affected by multiple such stressors. Addressing such anthropogenic

pressures is key to facilitating the natural recovery of vulnerable stocks through

increasing freshwater production potential to ultimately maximise adult returns.

Water quality and hydromorphological issues (including channelisation, drainage

works and modification of the river corridor through catchment land use practices)

continue to remain as major pressures affecting the continued sustainability of our

salmon stocks at a national scale. Despite increasing awareness surrounding these

pressures in recent years and attempts to address them, in general there has not been

significant improvement in either hydromorphology or water quality to date at a scale

that would have measurable conservation benefits to salmon stocks. It should be

noted that locally-focused initiatives to improve habitat or address water quality

pressures do however, demonstrate that improvements are possible and TEGOS are

aware of many such actions that are underway.

The latest EPA assessment for water quality in Ireland (period 2019-2024) showed that,

rather than any significant overall improvement, that there has been a small decline in

water quality compared to the previous reporting assessments with only 52% of our

surface waters now considered to have at least good ecological status. The number

of estuarine waters classed as having satisfactory water quality also declined with 70%

now in unsatisfactory condition, a reduction of 5% compared to the previous

assessment period (2016-2021). For both, this has largely been attributed to diffuse

inputs, with elevated nutrient concentrations (nitrogen and phosphorus), continuing to

be the most widespread issue along with habitat loss associated with

hydromorphology pressures such as barriers and land drainage.

Additional pressures and threats impacting salmon in Irish freshwater and transitional

waters include marine salmon aquaculture, water regulation and abstraction and

changes in thermal and hydrological regimes associated with climate change.

Impacts from salmon aquaculture include increased sea lice infestation pressure

which can lead to reduced marine survival in afflicted wild salmon smolts and

potential genetic introgression from farm escapes. Whilst completely impassable

barriers have the gravest impact on the conservation status of Irish salmon (as they

limit the freshwater production capacity of the national stock), mitigating minor or

moderate barriers will also decrease migration stress for adult and juvenile salmon.

Regulation of river flows through hydropower extraction dams, reservoirs and

abstraction points for human and agricultural water consumption may also affect

salmon stocks by disturbing migration routes and creating unnaturalised flow regimes

and compounding stress during dry periods. This is likely to become a more pressing

concern in future years through climate-mediated droughts and increased water

demands. Climate change affecting estuaries, rivers and lakes is already impacting

salmon, with sublethal thermal stress conditions increasingly observed each summer in

Ireland in the past 10-20 years, adverse winter conditions (mild, wet winters with

extreme flooding events) having the potential to affect spawning recruitment and

warm, dry spells during spring potentially impacting smolt migration success. The

primary concern related to the stressors listed here is the capacity for a multi-stressor

scenario, where individual pressures combine to create a compounded situation for

salmon, which will decrease resilience and capacity to adapt to the low marine

survival salmon are currently experiencing. Removing or mitigating individual stressors

listed here that are operating in freshwater or transitional waters currently represents

the most pragmatic approach to stabilise overall declining population trends.

7 Changes to assessments in future years

Until such time as new methods become available, the existing forecast model based

on fisheries data or count data will be applied using the currently derived CLs. Data

will continue to be updated and where appropriate, improved to provide catch

advice.

7.1 Exploitation rates

The SSCS examined rod exploitation rates on rivers with counters in 2008 to derive

estimates of the likely range of exploitation by anglers on salmon stocks. Since then,

new counters have been installed on many rivers and a time series of rod exploitation

has been generated on a range of rivers nationally. An extensive review of salmon

exploitation rates in Irish rivers (Millane et al., 2017) using rod catch and fish counter

data was published in 2017 but has not yet been incorporated into estimates of adult

salmon return. It is envisaged that this work will be revised to include more recent data

as well as investigating if climatic influences and river characteristics can be

incorporated into exploitation rates. As such, TEGOS intend to further develop this

data to refine the rod exploitation rates currently being used to provide estimates of

salmon stock status.

7.2 River Lee, River Owenacurra and Cork Harbour

TEGOS advice was sought by IFI Management in 2023 on a stakeholder query

concerning the Lower River Lee and Owenacurra stocks in relation to the Cork

Harbour commercial fishery. Since the move to river-specific conservation limits (CLs)

in 2007, the Lower Lee has been deemed to exceed its conservation limit and a

sustainable surplus for exploitation has been advised. This surplus has been divided

between the angling and commercial fisheries. To date, the commercial fishery in

Cork Harbour has been managed as a single stock (as part of the Lower Lee stock)

and scientific advice has been given in this regard with no consideration given to

status of the Owenacurra stock. As such, as a future basis for providing revised

scientific catch advice for the commercial fishery in Cork Harbour, a study was

commissioned to establish the river origin of the salmon caught in this commercial

fishery.

In summer 2024, an extensive sampling programme was undertaken in the Cork

Harbour commercial fishery and in rivers that potentially contribute salmon to this

fishery. Some supplementary sampling was undertaken in autumn 2025. It is envisaged

that a report will be produced for consideration well in advance of the 2027 catch

advice.

8 Conclusions

Overall, only 28% of the 144 salmon designated river stocks are assessed to be

exceeding biologically-based CLs at the 75% probability level. This includes 53% (n=41)

of the 77 salmon stocks where direct assessments could be made. In addition, 29 more

river stocks are advised to open for C&R-only angling as assessments indicate

relatively high juvenile densities or the stocks are deemed to be under CL but meeting

≥65% of CL. A further 74 stocks are advised to be closed to all fishing. As such, it is clear

that the overall proportion of rivers with good population status is moderate. Fish

counters and traps provide the most direct assessment of salmon stock status in rivers.

The number installed and used in stock assessments has increased from 9 in 2002 to a

maximum of 31 in recent years. There has been variation in the mean count since

2002, with highest numbers recorded in 2007 coinciding with the cessation of offshore

drift netting. However, there has been a marked decline in salmon counts

subsequently. These counter data can be considered as an index for other rivers

nationally and likely reflect the national trend. Indeed, the Fish Counter Programme

provides a quantitative measure of salmon returns in Irish rivers where they operate. As

such it is considered to be a strategically important asset in regard to the assessment

of salmon stocks and the associated sustainable catch advice provided annually by

TEGOS.

Marine survival values in recent years are amongst the lowest recorded. Changes in

oceanic conditions leading to poor recruitment of salmon have been implicated by

NASCO following international investigations into the decline of salmon stocks (e.g.

SALSEA Merge). Recent stock forecasts from ICES for Irish stocks in the southern range

of the North-east Atlantic, indicate that this low stock situation will prevail at least until

2028. Given the current poor survival, the expectation of large catches is unrealistic at

present and priority should be given to conservation objectives rather than catch

increases until there is a noticeable improvement in stock abundance.

In this regard, the ongoing management policy of adopting the scientific advice to

only allow exploitation on stocks above CL is central to support the recovery of salmon

stocks nationally. With this policy in place, any improvement in marine survival rates

and /or in the total abundance of out-migrating smolts would likely be reflected in

greater numbers of rivers achieving CL. This will contribute to complying with ICES and

NASCO advice of providing for the diversity and abundance of salmon stocks.

9 References

Beaugrand, G. and Reid, P.C. (2012). Relationships between North Atlantic salmon, plankton,

and hydroclimatic change in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science

69:1549-1562.

Condron, A., DeConto, R., Bradley, R.S. and Juanes, F. (2005). Multidecadal North Atlantic

climate variability and its effect on North American salmon abundance. Geophysical

Research Letters 32. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024239

Crozier, W.W. and Kennedy G.J.A (1994). Application of semi-quantitative electro-fishing to

juvenile salmonid stock surveys. Journal of Fish Biology 45:159-164.

Defriez, E.J., Sheppard, L.W., Reid, P.C. and Reuman, D.C. (2016). Climate change-related

regime shifts have altered spatial synchrony of plankton dynamics in the North Sea.

Global Change Biology 22:2069-2080.

EPA (2025). Water Quality in Ireland 2019-2024. Feeley, H., McConigley, C. and Deakin, J. (Eds.).

Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford, Ireland, 112 pp.

Friedland, K.D., Shank, B.V., Todd, C.D., McGinnity, P. and Nye, J.A. (2014). Differential response

of continental stock complexes of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to the Atlantic

Multidecadal Oscillation. Journal of Marine Systems, 133, 77–87.

Friedland, K.D., MacLean, J.C., Hansen, L.P., Peyronnet, A.J., Karlsson, L., Reddin, D.G., Ó

Maoiléidigh, N. and McCarthy, J.L. (2009). The recruitment of Atlantic salmon in Europe.

ICES J Mar Sci 66:289-304.

Friedland, K.D., Reddin, D.G. and Castonguay, M. (2003). Ocean thermal conditions in the post-

smolt nursery of North American Atlantic salmon. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60:343-

355.

Gargan, P., Roche, W., Keane, S. and Stafford, T. (2008). Catchment-wide electrofishing Report.

Central Fisheries Board, Mobhi Boreen, Dublin 9.

Gargan. P., Stafford, J. and Ó Maoiléidigh, N. (2001). The relationship between salmon rod

catch, stock size, rod exploitation and rod effort on the Erriff fishery, Western Ireland (pp.

68-75). In R. Shelton (Ed.) The interpretation of rod and net catch data. Proceedings of a

Workshop held at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science,

Lowestoft. 6-7 November. Atlantic Salmon Trust, Moulin, Pitlochry, Scotland.

Hao, X., Sein, D.V., Spiegl, T., Niu, L., Chen, X. and Lohmann, G. (2025). Modeling the Atlantic

Multidecadal Oscillation: The High-Resolution Ocean Brings the Timescale; the

Atmosphere, the Amplitude. Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Research 4, 0085.

https://doi.org/10.34133/olar.0085

ICES (2016). Report of the Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS). 30 March–8 April

2016, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:10. 323 pp.

ICES (2019). Report of the Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS). ICES Scientific

Reports,1:16. 368 pp.

ICES (2022). Working group on north Atlantic salmon (WGNAS). ICES Scientific Reports, 3: 29

ICES (2023). Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS). ICES Scientific Reports. 5:41. 478

pp.

ICES (2025). Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from the Northeast Atlantic. In Report of the ICES

Advisory Committee, 2025. ICES Advice 2025, sal.neac.all.

https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.28342859

McCarthy, J.L., Friedland, K.D. and Hansen, L.P. (2008). Monthly indices of the post-smolt growth

of Atlantic salmon from the Drammen River, Norway. Journal of Fish Biology 72:1572-1588.

Millane, M., Shephard, S., White, J., Ó Maoiléidigh, N., O’Higgins, K., O’Malley, P., Roche, W.,

Poole, R., Rogan, G., Bond, N. and Gargan, P. (2017). Estimating salmonid angling

exploitation rates from systems monitored by fish counters, and potential application to

fisheries management in Ireland (pp. 167-184). In G. Harris (Ed.) Sea Trout: Science &

Management. Proceedings of the 2nd International Sea Trout Symposium.

Milner N.J., Davidson, R.E., Evans, R.E., Locke, V. and Wyatt, R.J. (2001). The use of rod catches

to estimate salmon runs in England and Wales (pp. 463–67). In R. Shelton (Ed.) The

interpretation of rod and net catch data. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Centre

for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft. 6-7 November. Atlantic

Salmon Trust, Moulin, Pitlochry, Scotland.

Mills, K.E., Pershing, A.J., Sheehan, T.F. and Mountain, D. (2013). Climate and ecosystem linkages

explain widespread declines in North American Atlantic salmon populations. Global

Change Biology 19:3046-3061.

NASCO (2009). NASCO Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Fisheries. North Atlantic

Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. NASCO Council

Document CNL(09)43. 12pp.

NASCO (2025a). Stressor Analysis carried out by each European Union Jurisdiction Council

Stressor Analysis carried out by each European Union Jurisdiction CNL(25)29rev. North

Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, 40 pp.

NASCO (2025b). National assessment of human stressors impacting Irish Atlantic salmon

populations. CNL(25)70. North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, 8 pp.

https://nasco.int/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CNL2570_Stressor-Analysis_EU-Ireland.pdf

Small, I. (1991). Exploring data provided by angling for salmonids in the British Isles. In I.G. Cowx

(Ed.) Catch Effort sampling Strategies – their application in Freshwater Fisheries

Management. Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd.

SSCS (2017). The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2016 with Precautionary Catch Advice for 2017.

The Standing Scientific Committee on Salmon. Independent Scientific Report to Inland

Fisheries Ireland, 96 pp.

Terray, L. (2012). Evidence for multiple drivers of North Atlantic multi-decadal climate variability.

Geophysical Research Letters 39. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053046

Thorstad, E.B., Bliss, D., Breau, C., Damon-Randall, K., Sundt-Hansen, L.E., Hatfield, E.M.C. et al.

(2021). Atlantic salmon in a rapidly changing environment—Facing the challenges of

reduced marine survival and climate change. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and

Freshwater Ecosystems 31:2654–2665.

Todd, C.D., Hughes, S.L., Marshall, C., MacLean, J.C., Lonergan, M.E. and Biuw, E. (2008).

Detrimental effects of recent ocean surface warming on growth condition of Atlantic

salmon. Global Change Biology 14:958-970.

Vollset et al., (2022). Ecological regime shift in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean revealed from the

unprecedented reduction in marine growth of Atlantic salmon. Science Advances 8:

eabk2542.

Whelan, K.F., Whelan, B.J. and Rogan, G. (2001). Catch as a predictor of salmon stock in the

Burrishoole fishery, Co. Mayo, Western Ireland (pp. 76-84). In R. Shelton (Ed.) The

interpretation of rod and net catch data. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Centre

for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft. 6-7 November. Atlantic

Salmon Trust, Moulin, Pitlochry, Scotland.

White, J., Ó Maoiléidigh, N., Gargan, P., de Eyto, E., Chaput, G., Roche, W., McGinnity, P.,

Crozier, W. W., Boylan, P., Doherty, D. and Marnell, F. (2016). Incorporating natural

variability in biological reference points and population dynamics into management of

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocks returning to home waters. ICES Journal of Marine

Science, 73(6): 1513–1524.

White, J., Fitzgerald, C. et al. (2023). Incorporating conservation limit variability and stock risk

assessment in precautionary salmon catch advice at the river scale. ICES Journal of Marine

Science, 80: 803-822.

10 Appendices

Appendix I. Members of the Technical Expert Group on Salmon (TEGOS)

2025/2026

Dr Sylvan Benaksas – Inland Fisheries Ireland

Dr Seán Kelly – Inland Fisheries Ireland

Dr Richard Kennedy – AFBI Northern Ireland

Mr Hugo Maxwell – Marine Institute

Dr Sarah McLean – Loughs Agency

Dr Michael Millane (Chair) – Inland Fisheries Ireland

Appendix II. River rod catch exploitation rates applied for 2026 catch advice

Table 8 River rod catch exploitation rates applied for the 2026 catch advice.

District River Year Total or 1SW exploitation rate MSW exploitation rate

Min. Likely Max. Min. Likely Max.

Dundalk

Fane

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Dundalk

Fane

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.06

0.09

0.2

Dundalk

Fane

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Dundalk

Fane

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

0.06

0.1

0.22

Dundalk

Glyde

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Dundalk

Glyde

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

0.06

0.09

0.2

Dundalk

Glyde

2021

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.1

0.22

Wexford

Slaney

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Wexford

Slaney

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

0.06

0.09

0.2

Wexford

Slaney

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Wexford

Slaney

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

0.06

0.1

0.22

Waterford

Barrow and Pollmounty

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Waterford

Barrow and Pollmounty

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

0.06

0.09

0.2

Waterford

Barrow and Pollmounty

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Waterford

Barrow and Pollmounty

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

0.06

0.12

0.27

Waterford

Nore

2022

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Waterford

Nore

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

0.06

0.12

0.27

Waterford

Suir, Clodiagh, Lingaun

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Waterford

Suir, Clodiagh, Lingaun

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

0.06

0.09

0.2

Waterford

Suir, Clodiagh, Lingaun

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Waterford

Suir, Clodiagh, Lingaun

2021

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.06

0.12

0.27

Lismore

Blackwater, Glenshelane, Finisk

2022

2025

0.1

0.15

0.2

Lismore

Blackwater, Glenshelane, Finisk

2021

0.067

0.1

0.14

Lismore

Bride

2023

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Lismore

Bride

2021

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Cork

Argideen

2023

202

0.01

0.05

0.12

Cork

Argideen

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Cork

Argideen

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Cork

Bandon

2022

202

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.06

0.12

0.27

District River Year Total or 1SW exploitation rate MSW exploitation rate

Min. Likely Max. Min. Likely Max.

Cork

Bandon

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

0.06

0.1

0.22

Cork

Coomhola

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

Cork

Coomhola

2021

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Cork

Glengarriff

2022

202

0.01

0.05

0.12

Cork

Glengarriff

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Cork

Ilen

2021

202

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.06

0.12

0.27

Cork

Lower Lee (Cork)

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.06

0.12

0.27

Cork

Lower Lee (Cork)

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.06

0.09

0.2

Cork

Lower Lee (Cork)

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.06

0.12

0.27

Cork

Lower Lee (Cork)

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

0.06

0.1

0.22

Cork

Mealagh

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

Cork

Mealagh

2021

2024

Cork

Owvane

2022

202

0.01

0.05

0.12

Cork

Owvane

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Kerry

Caragh

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Kerry

Caragh

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.15

0.31

0.46

Kerry

Caragh

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Kerry

Caragh

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

0.15

0.31

0.46

Kerry

Croanshagh

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Kerry

Croanshagh

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Kerry

Croanshagh

2021

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Kerry

Ferta

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Kerry

Ferta

2021

202

0.07

0.15

0.35

Kerry

Inney

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

Kerry

Inney

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Kerry

Inney

2021

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Kerry

Laune and Cottoners

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Kerry

Laune and Cottoners

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.15

0.31

0.46

Kerry

Laune and Cottoners

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Kerry

Laune and Cottoners

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

0.15

0.25

0.37

Kerry

Maine

2022

2025

0.05

0.08

0.11

Kerry

Maine

2021

0.05

0.064

0.08

Kerry

Owenmore

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

District River Year Total or 1SW exploitation rate MSW exploitation rate

Min. Likely Max. Min. Likely Max.

Kerry

Owenmore

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Kerry

Owenmore

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Kerry

Owenmore

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Kerry

Roughty

2024

2025

0.05

0.1

0.15

Kerry

Roughty

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Kerry

Roughty

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Kerry Roughty 2021 0.07 0.12 0.28

Kerry

Sheen

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Kerry

Sheen

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Kerry

Sheen

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Kerry

Sheen

2021

0.01

0.05

0.12

Kerry

Sneem

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Kerry

Sneem

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Kerry

Sneem

2021

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Kerry

Waterville

2022

2025

0.175

0.225

0.385

0.15

0.31

0.46

Kerry

Waterville

2021

0.175

0.18

0.308

0.15

0.25

.37

Limerick

Doonbeg

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Limerick

Doonbeg

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Limerick

Doonbeg

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Limerick

Doonbeg

2021

0.01

0.05

0.12

Connemara

Screebe

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Connemara

Screebe

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Connemara

Screebe

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Connemara

Screebe

2021

0.07

0.15

0.35

Ballinakill

Bundorragha

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Ballinakill

Bundorragha

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.15

0.31

0.46

Ballinakill

Bundorragha

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Ballinakill

Bundorragha

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

0.06

0.12

0.27

Ballinakill

Carrownisky

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballinakill

Carrownisky

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Ballinakill

Carrownisky

2021

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballinakill

Owenwee (Belclare)

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

District River Year Total or 1SW exploitation rate MSW exploitation rate

Min. Likely Max. Min. Likely Max.

Ballinakill

Owenwee (Belclare)

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Ballinakill

Owenwee (Belclare)

2021

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Bangor

Glenamoy

2023

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Bangor

Glenamoy

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Bangor

Glenamoy

2021

0.01

0.05

0.12

Bangor

Newport R. (Lough Beltra)

2025

0.01

0.025

0.06

0.10

0.22

Bangor

Newport R. (Lough Beltra)

2024

0.01

0.025

0.06

0.12

0.27

Bangor

Newport R. (Lough Beltra)

2023

0.05

0.075

0.11

0.06

0.12

0.27

Bangor

Newport R. (Lough Beltra)

2022

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.06

0.12

0.27

Bangor

Newport R. (Lough Beltra)

2021

0.05

0.08

0.12

0.06

0.1

0.22

Ballina

Easky

2025

0.0

075

175

Ballina

Easky

2024

0.07

0.15

0.35

Ballina

Easky

2022

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Ballina

Easky

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

Ballina

Moy

2025

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.15

0.23

0.35

Ballina

Moy

2024

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Ballina

Moy

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.15

0.23

0.35

Ballina

Moy

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Ballina

Moy

2021

0.1

0.33

0.50

0.15

0.31

0.46

Sligo

Drumcliff

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

Sligo

Drumcliff

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Sligo

Drumcliff

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Sligo

Drumcliff

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

Sligo

Garvogue (Bonnet)

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Sligo

Garvogue (Bonnet)

2023

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Sligo

Garvogue (Bonnet)

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Sligo

Garvogue (Bonnet)

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

0.06

0.1

0.22

Ballyshannon

Bungosteen

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Bungosteen

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Ballyshannon

Bungosteen

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Bungosteen

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Ballyshannon

Drowes

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.15

0.31

0.46

Ballyshannon

Drowes

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.06

0.12

0.27

District River Year Total or 1SW exploitation rate MSW exploitation rate

Min. Likely Max. Min. Likely Max.

Ballyshannon

Drowes

2022

0.035

0.075

0.175

0.15

0.31

0.46

Ballyshannon

Drowes

2021

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.06

0.12

0.27

Ballyshannon

Duff

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Duff

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Ballyshannon

Duff

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Duff

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Ballyshannon

Glen

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Glen

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Ballyshannon

Glen

2021

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Oily

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Oily

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Ballyshannon

Oily

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Oily

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Ballyshannon

Owenwee (Yellow)

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Owenwee (Yellow)

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Ballyshannon

Owenwee (Yellow)

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Ballyshannon

Owenwee (Yellow)

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Letterkenny

Clady

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

Letterkenny

Clady

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Letterkenny

Clady

2022

0.07

0.15

0.35

Letterkenny

Clady

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

Letterkenny

Crana

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Letterkenny

Crana

2024

0.01

0.05

0.12

Letterkenny

Crana

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Letterkenny

Crana

2021

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Letterkenny

Gweebara

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

0.06

0.12

0.27

Letterkenny

Gweebara

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

0.06

0.12

0.27

Letterkenny

Gweebara

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Letterkenny

Gweebara

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

0.06

0.1

0.22

Letterkenny

Gweedore (Crolly R.)

2021

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Letterkenny

Leannan

2022

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

0.06

0.12

0.27

Letterkenny

Leannan

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

0.06

0.1

0.22

Letterkenny

Owenea and Owentocker

2024

2025

0.07

0.15

0.35

District River Year Total or 1SW exploitation rate MSW exploitation rate

Min. Likely Max. Min. Likely Max.

Letterkenny

Owenea and Owentocker

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Letterkenny

Owenea and Owentocker

2022

0.035

0.075

0.175

Letterkenny

Owenea and Owentocker

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

Letterkenny

Ray

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Letterkenny

Ray

2023

0.01

0.0375

0.09

Letterkenny

Ray

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Letterkenny

Ray

2021

0.01

0.04

0.1

Letterkenny

Tullaghobegly

2024

2025

0.01

0.05

0.12

Letterkenny

Tullaghobegly

2023

0.07

0.11

0.26

Letterkenny

Tullaghobegly

2022

0.01

0.05

0.12

Letterkenny

Tullaghobegly

2021

0.07

0.12

0.28

Appendix III. Summary results from the catchment-wide electro-fishing

programme in 2025

Analysis of salmon fry index

In cases where the scientific forecast of returning salmon recruits to a river provides a

catch option resulting in less than a 75% chance of the river meeting its conservation

limit (CL), the scientific advice recommends that the river is closed for fishing. As a

separate recommendation, TEGOS advise that if a river is meeting 65% or more of its

CL the river can open for catch and release-only (C&R-only) angling. There are many

rivers where a direct assessment is not possible due to a very low or inconsistent

reported angling catch (i.e. less than 10 on average annually). Therefore, advised

closures of rivers with very low rod catches, or which have been closed over a period

due to the absence of new and alternative information (e.g. fish counter information)

poses a problem for assessing the status of the rivers salmon population and CL

attainment over time as there are no new data for updating the forecast and risk

analysis method currently employed by the TEGOS.

A relative index of fry abundance based on a semi-quantitative electrofishing

technique (Crozier and Kennedy 1994; and Gargan et al. 2008) was developed in

2009 and 2010 to provide an alternative method for assessing CL attainment in rivers

closed for angling or where there was no counting facility. Electrofishing of juveniles

presents an alternative (and fisheries independent) source of population information

as the numbers of juveniles should be a good reflection of the number of adults which

produced them and the relative productive capacity of that river. This method is

based on a relationship between fry abundance (which may be measurable

annually) and adult returns for rivers with information on rod catches or counters over

a number of years was available. The scientific advice is that assessments should

preferentially be based on a recent five-year average of available data. Some

catchment-wide electro-fishing data are based on less than five data points,

however, it is expected that more robust assessments can be made over the coming

years as more surveys are carried out.

The method is primarily used for rivers where there is no other index of stock. Some

catchments are electro-fished annually as index catchments. An index of at least 17

salmon fry per five-minute standardised electro-fishing is advised as the cut-off

between rivers below this threshold where the stock is clearly below CL and those

rivers above the threshold where it is more likely that the stock is meeting CL. If the fry

index is above the threshold, C&R-only fishing in the following year is advised. This

provides a safeguard against opening a river prematurely, while still allowing some

fishery activity and the subsequent collection of catch data.

Catchment-wide electro-fishing is also important in providing managers with

information on the distribution and abundance of salmon fry and to identify

management issues in a catchment or tributary. The absence or low density of salmon

fry may be related to water quality issues, obstructions, or habitat damage and areas

of low abundance can be investigated.

During 2025, catchment-wide electro-fishing was undertaken in 41 catchments or sub-

catchments to assess abundance and distribution of salmon fry (Figure 12 and Figure

13). Thirty-six catchments were fully surveyed. Sub-catchment surveys were

undertaken on parts of the Erne and investigative surveys were conducted on portions

of the Ballysadare River, the Drowes system and the Liffey upper in Dublin. A survey

started on the Garvogue could not be completed due to high water levels. A total of

1047 sites were visited. In the 19 years of the programme (2007-2025) 673

catchment/sub-catchment surveys in 173 catchments or sub-catchments have been

undertaken comprising 16,099 site surveys. For the catchments surveyed in 2025 results

ranged from zero salmon fry on the Erne, Kealincha and Lough Fada, to 34.07 salmon

fry/ 5 min on the Sheen. Sixteen of the catchments surveyed in 2025 had averages of

at least 17 salmon fry/ 5 min in 2025. (Figure 12 and Figure 13).

Figure 12 Mean salmon fry index values for catchments surveyed in 2025.

Figure 13 Results of catchment wide electro-fishing undertaken in 2025.

Appendix IV. River / stock specific information used in the salmon catch

advice process for the 2026 advice and catch advice at various probabilities

of attaining conservation limit

This appendix is provided as a separate document.

Appendix V. Salmon-designated rivers within Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) where salmon have a qualifying interest and status

relative to CL for the 2026 advice.

Table 9 Salmon-designated rivers within Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) where salmon have a qualifying interest and status relative to conservation limit for the

2026 advice at the 75% probability of achieving CL.

District River Assessed river Above CL for 2026 advice SAC

Ballina

Brusna

RIVER MOY SAC

Ballina

Moy

Above

RIVER MOY SAC

Ballinakill

Bundorragha

1SW Above; MSW below

MWEELREA/SHEEFFRY/ERRIFF COMPLEX SAC

Ballinakill

Bunowen

Above

MWEELREA/SHEEFFRY/ERRIFF COMPLEX SAC

Ballinakill

Carrownisky

Above

MWEELREA/SHEEFFRY/ERRIFF COMPLEX SAC

Ballinakill

Culfin

Above

THE TWELVE BENS/GARRAUN COMPLEX SAC

Ballinakill

Dawros

Above

THE TWELVE BENS/GARRAUN COMPLEX SAC

Ballinakill

Erriff

Below

MWEELREA/SHEEFFRY/ERRIFF COMPLEX SAC

Ballinakill

Owenglin

Above

THE TWELVE BENS/GARRAUN COMPLEX SAC

Ballyshannon

Drowes

Above

LOUGH MELVIN SAC

Ballyshannon

Eske

Below

LOUGH ESKE AND ARDNAMONA WOOD SAC

Ballyshannon

Glen

Above

SLIEVE TOOEY/TORMORE ISLAND/LOUGHROS BEG BAY SAC

Bangor

Ballinglen

GLENAMOY BOG COMPLEX SAC

Bangor

Glenamoy

Below

GLENAMOY BOG COMPLEX SAC

Bangor

Muingnabo

GLENAMOY BOG COMPLEX SAC

Bangor

Newport

Below

NEWPORT RIVER SAC

Bangor

Owenduff

Above

MWEELREA/SHEEFFRY/ERRIFF COMPLEX SAC

Bangor

Owengarve

OWENDUFF/NEPHIN COMPLEX SAC

Bangor

Owenmore

Above

MWEELREA/SHEEFFRY/ERRIFF COMPLEX SAC

Bangor

Srahmore

Below

OWENDUFF/NEPHIN COMPLEX SAC

Connemara

Ballynahinch

Above

THE TWELVE BENS/GARRAUN COMPLEX SAC

District River Assessed river Above CL for 2026 advice SAC

Connemara

Cashla

Above

CONNEMARA BOG COMPLEX SAC

Connemara

Lough na Furnace

CONNEMARA BOG COMPLEX SAC

Connemara

Screebe

Below

CONNEMARA BOG COMPLEX SAC / MAUMTURK MOUNTAINS SAC

Drogheda

Boyne

Below

RIVER BOYNE AND RIVER BLACKWATER SAC

Galway

Corrib

Above

LOUGH CORRIB SAC / MAUMTURK MOUNTAINS SAC

Galway

Knock

CONNEMARA BOG COMPLEX SAC

Galway

Owenboliska

Below

CONNEMARA BOG COMPLEX SAC

Kerry

Behy

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS SAC

Kerry

Caragh

Above

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS & CARAGH R CAT SAC

Kerry

Croanshaugh

Below

GLANMORE BOG SAC

Kerry

Ferta

Above

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS & CARAGH R CAT SAC

Kerry

Finnihy

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS & CARAGH R CAT SAC

Kerry

Inny

Below

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS & CARAGH R CAT SAC

Kerry

Kerry Blackwater

Above

BLACKWATER RIVER (KERRY) SAC

Kerry

Laune and Cottoners

Above

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS SAC

Kerry

Lough Fada

GLANMORE BOG SAC

Kerry

Owenreagh

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS & CARAGH R CAT SAC

Kerry

Roughty

Above

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS & CARAGH R CAT SAC

Kerry

Sneem

Above

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS & CARAGH R CAT SAC

Kerry

Waterville

Above

KILLARNEY NAT PARK, MACGILLYCUDDY'S REEKS SAC

Letterkenny

Clady

Below

LOUGH ESKE AND ARDNAMONA WOOD SAC

Letterkenny

Gweebarra

1SW Above; MSW below

WEST OF ARDARA/MAAS ROAD SAC

Letterkenny

Gweedore (Crolly)

Above

CLOGHERNAGORE BOG AND GLENVEAGH NATIONAL PARK SAC

Letterkenny

Lackagh

Below

CLOGHERNAGORE BOG AND GLENVEAGH NATIONAL PARK SAC

Letterkenny

Leannan

Below

LEANNAN RIVER SAC

District River Assessed river Above CL for 2026 advice SAC

Letterkenny

Owenea

Above

WEST OF ARDARA/MAAS ROAD SAC

Letterkenny

Owennamarve

CLOGHERNAGORE BOG AND GLENVEAGH NATIONAL PARK SAC

Letterkenny

Ray

CLOGHERNAGORE BOG AND GLENVEAGH NATIONAL PARK SAC

Letterkenny

Tullaghobegly

Above

CLOGHERNAGORE BOG AND GLENVEAGH NATIONAL PARK SAC

Limerick

Feale

Above

LOWER RIVER SHANNON SAC

Limerick

Mulkear

Below

LOWER RIVER SHANNON SAC

Limerick

Shannon

LOWER RIVER SHANNON SAC

Lismore

Blackwater

Above

BLACKWATER RIVER (CORK/WATERFORD) SAC

Lismore

Bride

Below

BLACKWATER RIVER (CORK/WATERFORD) SAC

Lismore

Lickey

BLACKWATER RIVER (CORK/WATERFORD) SAC

Sligo

Ballysadare

Above

UNSHIN RIVER SAC

Sligo

Garavogue

Below

LOUGH GILL SAC

Waterford

Barrow

Below

RIVER BARROW AND RIVER NORE SAC

Waterford

Nore

Below

RIVER BARROW AND RIVER NORE SAC

Waterford

Suir

Below

LOWER RIVER SUIR SAC

Wexford

Slaney

Below

SLANEY RIVER VALLEY SAC

Salmon is also a qualifying interest in the Castlemaine Harbour SAC (in freshwater only)

0 views·67 pages

The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2025 with Catch Advice for 2026 PDF Free Download

The Status of Irish Salmon Stocks in 2025 with Catch Advice for 2026 PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

Uploaded by Larry Franklin on 3/19/2026

/67

100%